Attorney Taitz gives an interview to US News and World Report on lack of eligibility of Ted Cruz for the US Presidency
Posted on | January 6, 2016 | 60 Comments
Press Release
Law Offices of Orly Taitz
Attorney Orly Taitz gave an interview to Steven Nelson, political reporter of US News and World Report. She was asked about eligibility of Ted Cruz for US Presidency. She stated that the US President is supposed to be a Natural Born Citizen. The Constitution does not explain what Natural Born means. In such instances the courts have to look at the meaning based on statements of the framers of the constitution and the meaning used at the time the constitution was written. According to a letter of John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to John Washington, Jay stated that the President has to be a Natural born citizen in order to prevent foreign nationals from becoming the Commander in Chief. At a time the framers of the Constitution used the legal encyclopedia ” The law of Nations” by Emer De Vattel, which defined Natural born citizen as one who is born in the country to citizens. At the time Cruz was born, his father was a citizen of Cuba, he was not a US citizen and Cruz inherited Cuban citizenship from him. Additionally, Cruz had a Canadian citizenship based on his birth in Canada. It appears that his mother got Canadian citizenship as well. Taitz advised Nelson that Rubio has the same problem, as at the time he was born, both of his parents were citizens of Cuba and did not have the US citizenship. (Additional note: Congressman Grayson claims that there is no evidence of Cruz’s mother being born in the US. Interestingly enough a number of investigators advised Taitz that they could not find any evidence of divorces of Cruz’s parents from their prior spouses before Ted Cruz’s birth as well)
Taitz was asked if she would file a legal action against Cruz. She stated that she does not need to as Congressman and candidate for Senate from Florida, Alan Grayson already announced that he will file a legal challenge against Cruz, should he become a nominee and Nelson should talk to Grayson. Further, Taitz stated that she is greatly discouraged and concerned about the fact that the courts refused to hear the matter in relation to Obama, even in light of Obama’s use of bogus IDs. The matter was never heard on the merits. The courts routinely dismissed the challenges to Obama claiming that plaintiffs did not have standing. In a couple of cases, where clients of Taitz were presidential candidates, such as former UN ambassador Dr. Alan Keys, and had standing, the courts used other excuses. When the cases were filed before the general election, the courts stated that the cases were filed too early. When the cases were filed after the election, the courts claimed that the cases were filed too late, so the courts took away from the citizens of this country their right to due process, for redress of grievances and their suffrage rights to have a legitimate US President. Taitz advised Nelson that probably the most egregious was the 2012 case of Grinols et al v Obama, Biden, Secretary of State of CA and Governor of CA. The District court found that at least one of the plaintiffs, a Presidential candidate, had standing, however Judge Morrison England ruled that Presidential eligibility is a nonjusticiable question and cannot be ruled upon by the court and has to be decided by Congress. However, during the same time the same Eastern District of CA and 9th Circuit ruled that it is a justiciable question in a case of another presidential candidate, Peta Lindsey, who was found not to be 35 years old yet and therefore constitutionally not eligible. The 9th Circuit ruled that that the case is moot, even though it was filed before the confirmation of Obama by the electoral college, before his confirmation by the joined session of the US Congress and before his swearing in. So, Taitz believes that the courts will not dispense justice on this issue.
Taitz stated to Nelson that due to the courts unwillingness to adjudicate Obama’s lack of eligibility on the merits, now anyone can be the US President. The wife of Ayatolla of Iran or of Mulla Omar or the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, can come to the US, give birth, take the kid back home and raise him there. As long as this kid is 35 years old and resides in the US for at least 14 years before running for President, he can become the president. His foreign citizenship based on the citizenship of his father, his foreign allegiance will not be considered, as the courts refuse to rule on the merits on this matter.
Nelson sent the article to Taitz, it contained only a small part of the interview and can be read below.
Orly,
Congressman Readies Ted Cruz Eligibility Lawsuit With Eye on Mom
A Florida Democrat and some Obama “birthers” agree about Cruz.
The Associated Press
Yo mama so Canadian? Ted Cruz says he’s eligible for the presidency, but others disagree.
By Steven Nelson Jan. 6, 2016, at 6:34 p.m. + More
Billionaire businessman Donald Trump suggested this week his nearest rival for the Republican presidential nomination may be ineligible for office and won a daylong echo across the political press, despite Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s attempt to brush off the commentary.
In raising the issue, Trump said Republicans should be concerned about Democrats hog-tying Cruz with a yearslong legal challenge — and indeed an effort to do just that already is afoot.
Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida, an attorney and Democratic Senate candidate, tells U.S. News he will file a lawsuit challenging Cruz’s eligibility should he overtake Trump and win the nomination — a scenario that’s at least plausible with the senator besting Trump in some Iowa polls.
Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada, in 1970 to an American mother and a Cuban father who later gained U.S. citizenship. There’s no court precedent on whether foreign-born Americans meet the Constitution’s “natural-born citizen” requirement, but there’s more to scrutiny of Cruz’s eligibility.
“If he’s not qualified to be president according to our Constitution, then he certainly should not serve,” Grayson says, poring over his notes for the possible lawsuit. “There’s quite a lot of stuff here.”
[SCHLESINGER: Trump Finally Plays the Cruz Birther Card]
In addition to the question of whether Cruz’s birth in Canada disqualifies him from being considered a natural-born citizen, for which there are clashing historical claims, Grayson notes there’s disagreement about whether both parents of U.S. citizens born overseas must be citizens.
And then there’s Cruz’s mother, Eleanor Darragh Wilson.
Grayson says Wilson may have forfeited her U.S. citizenship by taking a Canadian oath of citizenship, and that he’s seen no evidence she actually was born in the U.S.
Cruz’s mother “may have elected to give up her U.S. citizenship — she wasn’t there on a visitor’s visa for five years, that’s for sure,” he says.
Grayson says “if his mother, who clearly worked in Canada for years and years, did so while becoming a Canadian citizen and taking an oath, which is how you do it in Canada, she lost her citizenship by U.S. law, specifically Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.”
[ALSO: More Mexicans Leave the U.S. Than Come Across the Border]
Section 349 says Americans may lose their citizenship if they take oaths of loyalty to foreign governments.
“There’s a counter-argument, there are some court cases that have watered down Section 349,” Grayson concedes. “It’s up to some court to decide whether Section 349 means what it say or not or whether it applied to her circumstances. We need more information at this point.”
“Another open question,” he says, “is why is there no record of her birth in the U.S.? Both the senator and others say she was born in Delaware, but there’s no record of it.”
Grayson declined to say if his staff is actively investigating the matter, and says it doesn’t matter to him whether his position wins him support or condemnation. The self-styled “congressman with guts,” however, bristles at the suggestion that his views are similar to those of the “birther” movement that questions President Barack Obama’s eligibility on the unproven theory he was born abroad.
“The Obama birthers are loons,” Grayson says. “There’s no plausible legal argument that Obama is not qualified to be president, that’s ridiculous. There’s a very good legal argument that Ted Cruz is not qualified to be president.”
[READ: Sheriff Arpaio Serves Unpatriotic Prisoners ‘Bread and Water’]
Rick Tyler, a spokesman for Cruz’s presidential campaign, did not respond to requests for comment, but in the past has pointed to a Harvard Law Review article from two past solicitors general proclaiming Cruz a natural-born citizen, writing a 1790 law included in that term the children of U.S. citizens overseas (though Grayson and others interpret that law as requiring both parents be citizens).
Tyler said in March, when Trump last attracted headlines musing about Cruz’s eligibility, that the law review article “puts this issue to rest.”
Cruz told reporters in Iowa on Wednesday that “as a legal matter it’s quite straightforward” and “settled law,” appearing — or attempting to appear — unconcerned.
But some prominent members of the birther movement say it’s not settled law. They note past candidacies are different and were not litigated, including the 1968 GOP presidential candidacy of Michigan Gov. George Romney, who was born in Mexico. Arizona Sen. John McCain, the GOP nominee in 2013, they note, was born in the Panama Canal Zone when it was a U.S. territory.
“I really like Cruz and believe he is a patriot, but he is ineligible,” says legal activist Larry Klayman, who in 2014 asked the Department of Homeland Security to begin deportation proceedings against Obama.
[MORE: The Alternatives to Trump and Carson: Rubio and Cruz]
But Klayman believes courts would not take a challenge to Cruz’s status.
That’s also the feeling of Soviet-born dentist-turned-lawyer Orly Taitz, who filed several lawsuits arguing Obama was ineligible to be president. She says she believes Cruz is not a natural-born citizen, but says she may not pursue the matter in court after repeated Obama-related defeats.
Taitz says she also believes Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, another Republican candidate for president, is not a natural born citizen because his parents were recent arrivals from Cuba.
“Let’s say we have a Cuban missile crisis a few years from now. What allegiance will they show?” she says, warning a hands-off approach from courts means that hypothetically “anybody could run for president — it could be the son of Ayatollah Khomeini, it could be the son of the king of Saudi Arabia, it could be the son of Mullah Omar or the son of [Islamic State group leader] al-Baghdadi.”
Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who convened a “cold case posse” to probe Obama’s birthplace and then declared the president’s birth certificate a “computer-generated forgery” in 2012, after it was released at the instigation of Trump, says he’s not sure if Cruz is a natural-born citizen.
Editorial cartoon on Donald Trump and the Islamic State group
SEE PHOTOS
Editorial Cartoons on Donald Trump
“Cruz, I don’t see any fraudulent document. I mean, he’s an open book with his records so why would I be interested in him?” Arpaio says. “I don’t care where he came from. I don’t care where Obama came from. I just care about a fake document, a birth certificate, that’s it.”
The sheriff, who is controversial for his hard-line stance against illegal immigration and his colorful treatment of prisoners — forcing them to wear pink underwear and serving them “bread and water” for defacing American flags — says questions about Obama’s birth certificate are not done.
“It’s not over with yet,” Arpaio says. “I need a couple lucky breaks and we’ll go public again.”
One option Cruz could pursue is a Senate resolution declaring him natural born. A resolution doing so for McCain in 2008 was co-sponsored by Democratic rivals Obama and Hillary Clinton. But Cruz’s sharp-elbowed style may make fellow senators less inclined to lend a hand. Spokespeople for Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., sponsor of the McCain measure, and McCain could not supply comment by deadline.
Trump: Electing Canadian-born Cruz Would Be ‘Precarious’ For Republicans
Inform
TAGS: Arpaio, Joe Trump, Donald Cruz, Ted Grayson, Alan
+ More
Steven Nelson
Steven Nelson is a reporter at U.S. News & World Report. You can follow him on Twitter or reach him at snelson@usnews.com.
Planning For Retirement? How to Allow For Smart…
Comments
60 Responses to “Attorney Taitz gives an interview to US News and World Report on lack of eligibility of Ted Cruz for the US Presidency”
Leave a Reply
EVIDENCE AGAINST OBAMA — YouTube Indiana Trial of Obama !
Petition the White House to institute Edward Snowden, National Whistleblower – Patriots against Government Corruption Day
OrlyTaitzEsq.comTAITZ REPORT
Official Facebook
IMPORTANT NOTICES – PLEASE READ!
Historic DVD Now Available!
DVD of the historic trial in GA and DVD of a historic testimony in NH, where evidence was provided showing Obama using a forged birth certificate and a stolen social security number. The DVDs are in a beautiful commemorative case with personal autographs from attorney Dr. Orly Taitz $22.50 each +$2.50 for shipping and handling.
---------
To order these DVDs, donate $25.00 by credit card on the website RunOrlyRun.com and email orly.taitz@gmail.com with you name and address. Or send a $25.00 check with your name and address to: Orly Taitz for US Senate 2012, 29839 Santa Margarita ste 100, RSM, CA 92688.
Advertisement / Sponsors
29839 Sta Margarita Pkwy,
Ste 100
Rancho Sta Margarita, CA 92688
orly.taitz @gmail. com
(949) 766-7687
--------------------------------------
Videography by Barbara Rosenfeld
--------------------------------------
Bumper Sticker
$9.99 thru PayPal--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------Orly Taitz Photo Collections
January 6th, 2016 @ 6:20 pm
I would like to attack only one element regarding the long discussion and that is the comments regarding the Panama Canal.
the United States never ever owned the Panama canal. The United States signed a Treaty with the Republic of Panama renting the Canal for a specific yearly payment in Gold. When the USA shot 22 students Panama kicked the USA out.
McCain was born In Colon Panama not the Canal zone and I have a copy of the birth certificate issued at the time.
January 6th, 2016 @ 6:38 pm
Orly, you’re the Greatest.
A helpful hint from a self-professed wordsmith:
Don’t use the word “bogus” in reference to obama’s Social Security number anymore. Use the word “stolen”… it’s a stronger word that commands greater attention.
January 6th, 2016 @ 7:04 pm
I hope this press release was proof read and corrected before formal release. You wrote “John Washington” when you meant “George Washington”. I make these kinds of mistakes all the time and it can be very aggravating.
January 6th, 2016 @ 7:54 pm
DR.TAITZ Do you know if CRUZ registered with the Selective Service System?
January 6th, 2016 @ 8:41 pm
People sure are confused about “natural born citizen” which helped solidify alligence to the U. S. by BOTH parents being U. S. citizens at time of child’s birth–on U S. soil…(hope that is stated correctly, ORLY). The following article has misunderstandings about NBC.
https://www.weaselzippers.us/249366-ted-cruzs-response-to-trumps-raising-citizenship-question/
Good point from one of posters to this article:
“Idiots!!!! Trump did not bring into question Cruz’ status … he simply stated that it will be a political football once the dems get a hold of it if Cruz were to become the nominee. He lamented that Cruz should’ve set this straight long ago.
On Cruz part this shows horrific judgement, to think that a Dem opponent wouldn’t make this an issue and a huge distraction. Cruz ain’t as smart as he thinks he is.”
January 6th, 2016 @ 8:49 pm
And this:
“Where’s the birth certificate of Ted Cruz’s MOTHER?
I googled both “Eleanor Elizabeth Wilson” and “Eleanor Elizabeth Wilson Darragh,” went three pages deep on each name, and nothing offering proof she was born in Delaware. Plus, on both searches, the first entry was this article by Steven Lubet at Salon, excerpted below:
Cruz’s official Canadian birth certificate, as posted by the Dallas Morning News, shows that Rafael Edward Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, on December 22, 1970. Oddly, however, the birth was not registered until December 31, leaving an unexplained gap of nine days. But where was baby Ted over Christmas, an astute birther might ask. Donald Trump could build a casino in a hole that size.
Still, the birth certificate does state that Cruz’s mother, Eleanor Elizabeth Wilson, was born in Wilmington, Delaware. As Cruz has often said, that made him a U.S. citizen at birth, and therefore eligible to be president – but only if the birth certificate is accurate. The Canadian officials would have had no reason to question Cruz’s mother about her native country, nor would they have demanded any proof. Her word alone was good enough for Canadian purposes. Why would they care about the baby’s future qualification for the U.S. presidency?
Which brings us – or rather, which ought to bring the birthers – to the documents Cruz has not produced. Where, for example, is the Consular Report of Birth Abroad, which Cruz’s parents could have obtained at the U.S. consulate in Calgary? That would at least establish their intention to register him as an American citizen while they were living in Canada. For that matter, where is Eleanor Wilson’s own birth certificate? I mean, anyone can claim to have been born in Delaware, and everyone (including this dual citizen of the United States and Canada) knows that Canadians are too polite to ask tough questions. Birthers will have no such qualms. Will they require documentary proof? ”
https://www.salon.com/2013/08/22/ted_cruzs_ironic_birther_predicament/
***************
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10024564430
January 6th, 2016 @ 11:33 pm
Somebody needs to explain all this to Megyn Kelly and her moronic minions – they were at their best at tonight’s show.
January 7th, 2016 @ 2:17 am
grayson claims birthers are loons? Seems he is just in it for the show himself.
The evidence obama is a frauds stares the whole world in the face, just as the facts of cruz’s, rubio’s and jindals, circumstances of birth indisputably declare them all ineligile.
What ever is game is, it appears he is only setting up our Constitution, the integrity of the office of our president, and the simple honorable truth, for further destruction.
January 7th, 2016 @ 3:13 am
Megyn Kelly is an establishment puppet and is doing everything to knock trump down
January 7th, 2016 @ 3:31 am
I don’t know
January 7th, 2016 @ 3:33 am
that is true
January 7th, 2016 @ 4:39 am
This whole portion of the Constitution dealing with the eligibility of presidential candidates like so many other sections of the Constitution has been destroyed by both parties. With the help of either an apathetic, stupid or both public.
January 7th, 2016 @ 7:48 am
If Cruz were a real patriot rather than just another politician seeking higher office he would throw in the towel, let his supporters go Trump with the expectation of being President Trump’s attorney general.As A.G. he would serve the country considerably better than as president.
January 7th, 2016 @ 8:06 am
https://www.dcclothesline.com/2015/04/04/can-you-handle-the-truth-ted-heidi-cruz-and-the-north-american-union/
Heidi Cruz, wife of Ted Cruz, was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and advocated for a North American Union.
January 7th, 2016 @ 9:13 am
I heard Judge Napolitano say that Cruz’s mother was an American when he was born and that makes him a “natural” born citizen. I wonder just how much he was paid to say that?
January 7th, 2016 @ 9:40 am
Anyone who understands the difference between common law and positive law will finally know what a natural born U.S. citizen is.
Only then will they know the difference between an Article I ‘Citizen’ and an Article II ‘natural born Citizen’.
Deciphered: No man-made (positive) law can make anyone a common law ‘natural born Citizen’, but it can make you a ‘Citizen’. Citizens are derived through positive law (statutes).
A statute Citizen can never be a natural born Citizen.
January 7th, 2016 @ 9:43 am
The integral of stupid is the psychotic change over time…
Subconscious this morning:
Billary and Barry for Prison 2016
January 7th, 2016 @ 10:01 am
I guess they didnt like the comment..
Let’s see if I get a duplicate error message:
The integral of stupid is the psychotic change over time…
Subconscious this morning:
Billary and Barry for Prison 2016
January 7th, 2016 @ 10:03 am
Mark Lavin over the past few days has tried to set the record straight. Check with him.
It doesn’t matter where a person is born when the mother is a U.S. citizen. That is, if you were born in Mexico and your mother was a U.S. citizen, the baby is a U.S. citizen.Same is true for anywhere.
January 7th, 2016 @ 10:04 am
If your parents are Mexican citizens, and you are born in the U.S., you are a Mexican citizen
January 7th, 2016 @ 10:09 am
Dear Orly,
Ted Cruz and his wife, a former Goldman Sachs VP, are so scripted, so rehearsed in their money-begging video, “Whatever you can” Published on Dec 8, 2015:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jkQz8vZ0jsU
——-
Paula Hoehn
January 7th, 2016 @ 10:45 am
but not a natural born US citizen as required to be the president
January 7th, 2016 @ 10:58 am
Re: Comment #16.
Change ‘common law’ to ‘natural law’ in all instances.
January 7th, 2016 @ 11:23 am
McCain is weighing in against Cruz. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/07/john-mccains-cold-blooded-revenge-on-ted-cruz/
January 7th, 2016 @ 12:33 pm
Orly: great article! You have pinned Cruz down with real evidence. And so has the member of Congress.
Now…here’s something I saw on tv just a day or so ago:…Cruz was being asked about the ineligibility for the Oval Office.
Cruz then commented, that: since his mother was born in America, that makes him an American citizen! (I couldn’t believe my ears!) Even though he was born in Canada!
That, Mr Cruz, is dual loyalty and that doesn’t work!
And others were standing behind Cruz laughing their heads off…and one of them was someone who supported Cruz, recently!
Like they are taking this as a joke, to try to get Cruz elected, even though they know he’s NOT eligible!
For a person that supposed to be a Constitutional lawyer, he’s so ridiculous in his public bashing of the Constitution, that I’m not going to just sit by and watch this freakin’ fiasco!
Hey, Cruz, grow up! Show some social maturity! Let’s also see your birth certificate–NOW! And let’s see the birth certificate of your mother!
You are under the microscope from here on in. As well as The Rube! And not to mention Santorum, as well.
But your numbers are all so low, why not step aside and do the right thing, by throwing your support towards Trump?
This election coming up is too damned serious to play any more games with the American public!
And for someone who is supposed to be a Constitutional attorney, you are wrong about your eligibility! And we all know it!
January 7th, 2016 @ 12:48 pm
FROM CONSERVATIVE REVIEW, BY MARK LEVIN
Ah, now I get it. A stupid attack on Cruz’s citizenship helps Cruz because now the Democrats won’t use it should Cruz become the GOP nominee. And, we are told, this is not a settled legal issue so we need a federal court to resolve it as quickly as possible — or resolve it some other way. And, if you reject all this as a stupid political attack that distracts conservatives from real issues, you obviously are on the wrong side of a cultural divide. Now, I expect this kind of incoherence from liberals, but not from young, aspiring conservative writers. First, it is a settled constitutional and statutory matter. It was settled when Trump said it was settled in September and it was settled when Trump flip-flopped and said it was an issue a few days ago. Cruz’s mother is an American citizen, was an American citizen when she gave birth to Cruz, and is, in fact, Cruz’s mother. Seems fairly simple. Not only that, American citizens give birth to American citizens, whether here or abroad. That’s not only common sense, it is the law. And think about it for a moment — if you follow their stupid argument, babies born of American citizens serving abroad in our military would be non-naturalized citizens ineligible to run for president. That’s stupid. Moreover, we don’t need federal judges to tell us what we can discern on our own. We can read the constitution, statutes, history, etc. Just because the Supreme Court has not ruled does not mean the issue isn’t settled. And it is highly doubtful the court would involve itself anyway under the political question doctrine. However, Trump is free to bring a lawsuit and “settle” the issue. Crazy lib Alan Grayson has already declared he will do so, even though he has no standing. Second, the idea that debating a stupid issue like this, where now Trump is joined by Obama and McCain, who are seeking to settle scores, among others, will somehow discourage Democrats from raising it in the general election should Cruz be the nominees is also stupid — or at least naive. Why would it stop them? Nothing is settled when it comes to the Left’s tactics. This argument is, well, stupid. Third, it is pure drivel to suggest that somehow calling this stupid birther tactic against Cruz a stupid tactic is evidence of a culture divide (or something). Stupidity knows no class or group. Nor does ignorance. I think we can all list several stupid billionaires or Ivy League grads. So, that suggestion is stupid. Now, can we, as conservatives, get back to restoring the republic, or do we continue to follow stupid arguments into defeat? – See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/01/john-nolte-has-spoken#sthash.G6T0u5lH.dpuf
January 7th, 2016 @ 1:06 pm
Cruz is not eligible under our “Constitution” and he knows it. He is going by old bushes corporate fraudulent setup. Orly,please see Judge Ana Von Reitz message to Bar Attorneys- pick up the torch for truth and the people. See breaking news post on americannationalmilitia.com 1-6-16. Thankyou
January 7th, 2016 @ 1:11 pm
Hey, Rich: did I miss something here or what?
Where was his mother born? Where’s the birth certificate? Where’s Cruz’ birth certificate?
We should absolutely take this seriously!
Do you want the (R) Cruz to open another can of worms and then, put the Constitution in jeopardy, to keep its Law of the Land on the edge of being trashed and allow the treasonous types to “START OVER?”
That’s insane!
January 7th, 2016 @ 1:19 pm
This is the (Vetting Season)!
And who is going to vet Cruz, if, by chance, he actually gets that lucky?
Is this not important to you?
Cruz was born in Canada…his parents were from Cuba! His father never became a citizen when he was born!
If his mother is an American citizen, where was she born? Where’s her birth certificate! And does not the idea that (BOTH) parents have to be citizens, first?
Who’s missing what?
Cause if he’s elgible, ask him to prove it!
This shows just how much these people are trying to abscond with our Law of the Land, the Constitution!
And for that, I think Cruz should be vetted every which way but loose!
After we have put up with O in this respect, why would anyone not want to have the (3) ineligibles vetted with an electron microscope?
January 7th, 2016 @ 1:39 pm
https://wwwbuzz1-chief.blogspot.com/
January 7th, 2016 @ 2:30 pm
https://www.facebook.com/notes/anna-tomerlin/ted-cruz-citizenship-timeline/815852778451290/
https://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/01/07/cruz-i-never-had-a-canadian-passport-this-is-a-silly-side-show/
At the age of four (4) traveling, to the US for the first time, Cruz would have had to have his own Canadian citizen passport, OR, be traveling on his mother’s, then a Canadian citizen, passport — as a minor Canadian citizen!!!!
Needs checkiing . . .
January 7th, 2016 @ 2:32 pm
I am 80. My mom taught a natural born citizen was born in the country to two citizen parents of the country. She taught school in a one-room school house in late 1890’s. In H.S. in the 1950’s, I was taught that same definition. Then things changed. The progressives started changing natural born citizen to ‘citizen at birth’. Sorry! Big difference. And the founders chose their words carefully. Had they meant ‘citizen at birth’ for POTUS, that is what they would have written. And ask yourselves, “If a plain old ‘citizen at birth’ was what was needed, why was it necessary to amend the constitution to make the office of VP requirement a NBC. They didn’t put ‘citizen at birth’. The forms for filing for POTUS in the difference states do not say you have to be a ‘citizen at birth’; they say NATURAL BORN CITIZEN! We need to get back to the wording and intent of our Founders and quit pissing on our Constitution!! When the Founders inserted the words “natural born Citizen” in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, as a principal qualification for those who wished to serve as president of the United States, it was their intention that all those born with any taint of foreign allegiance should be barred from the presidency and the vice presidency. Hence, the term “natural born Citizen.” https://drrichswier.com/2014/11/07/ted-cruz-eligible/
January 7th, 2016 @ 2:33 pm
People are missing one very important element.
No where in any law passed by the Congress is the word natural born used except the Presidential clause in Constitution. The word was mistakenly put in the 1790 Naturalization Clause but that error was corrected to delete the previous natural born wording in 1795 Naturalization law and has never been used again.
Ted Cruz is a Citizen and nothing else.
January 7th, 2016 @ 3:20 pm
Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution reads: 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.
If two citizen parents were not required for ‘Natural Born Citizen’ status then there is no possible logical reason for the adoption clause in Article 2 Section 1. All the founders were charter citizens with non-citizen parents because the country did not exist when their parents gave birth to them. And there were many citizens at that time who were born on U.S. soil but not to citizen parents for the same obvious reason. The only distinguishable difference between the “citizens at the time” and a “natural born citizen” is the citizenship of the parents at the time of birth. The founders knew it would take a generation to produce the first ‘Natural Born Citizen’ born on U.S. soil from parents who were citizens to produce a candidate free from any direct foreign birthright allegiances. The founders needed to include the charter citizens in order to have Presidential candidates (themselves) until a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ could be available for candidacy. At the time of the adoption there were only two groups of charter citizens available for the candidate pool…native born citizens (born on U.S. soil to non-citizen parents) and naturalized citizens (those born abroad). If either of these groups were eligible to hold office as President then there would be no reason for the adoption clause nor would there be a need to distinguish ‘Natural Born Citizens’. And to those who would suggest that the adoption clause was because the ‘soil’ was British before the adoption and that it was strictly a matter of jus soli, the article would read ‘no person except a native born citizen’ instead of ‘no person except a natural born citizen’ as it was well understood and a part of the language of the day to regard a person born on the soil a native born citizen.
President Chester Arthur was born on US soil to a US citizen mother, but faced an eligibility challenge because his father was not a citizen when Chester was born. Before the authorities could seize them Arthur took all his family documents and burned them in his back yard effectively covering up the fact of his ineligibility to hold office. It was only recently in 2009 that a researcher found documentation which confirmed that Arthur’s critics were right about his ineligibility because his father was not a citizen at the time of Chester’s birth.
January 7th, 2016 @ 3:58 pm
1940 Census for Ted Cruz’s Mother, Eleanor Darragh Cruz
Name: Eleanor Darragh
Age: 5
Estimated birth year: abt 1935
Gender: Female
Race: White
Birthplace: Delaware
Marital Status: Single
Relation to Head of House: Daughter
Home in 1940: Bellefonte, New Castle, Delaware
Map of Home in 1940: View Map
Street: Lore Avenue
House Number: 1311
Inferred Residence in 1935: Bellefonte, New Castle, Delaware
Residence in 1935: Same Place
Sheet Number: 8B
Attended School or College: No
Highest Grade Completed: None
Neighbors: View others on page
Household Members:
Name Age
Edward J Darragh 33
Elizabeth E Darragh 27
Eleanor Darragh 5
Caroline Darragh 11/12
January 7th, 2016 @ 9:39 pm
Is Caroline Darragh Eleonor Elizabeth’s sister? If that is the case, her mother, Elizabeth E Darragh, gave birth to her when she was 15 or 16
January 8th, 2016 @ 1:35 am
Poster#5, i hope it comes to this, that way ObamaForgeryGate will be right back in the headlines. Cruz will release his passport records, college transcripts, etc. Then the question will be “ok soebarkah, now wheres yours?” Ha!
January 8th, 2016 @ 9:08 am
The jig is up!
Rotten spoiled goods.
Bye Bye, TED. Big loser!
Tell em, Danno!!!
January 8th, 2016 @ 10:48 am
Dear Orly,
In answer to your question #34, it appears that Caroline Darragh is Eleonor Elizabeth Darragh’s sister, and that Caroline was born in 1939 or 1940 (year of census) when mother Elizabeth E Darragh was 27 yrs old:
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VRZN-646
Edward J Darragh – United States Census, 1940
Name: Edward J Darragh
Event Type: Census Event Date: 1940
Event Place: Bellefonte, District 6, New Castle, Delaware, United States
Gender: Male
Age: 33
Marital Status: Married
Race (Original): White Race: White
Relationship to Head of Household: Head
Birthplace: Delaware
Birth Year (Estimated): 1907
Last Place of Residence: Same Place
Household Role Gender Age Birthplace
Edward J Darragh Head M 33 Delaware
Elizabeth E Darragh Wife F 27 Delaware
Eleanor Darragh Daug F 5 Delaware
Caroline Darragh Daug F 0 Delaware
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VRZN-64X
Elizabeth E Darragh – US Census, 1940
Name: Elizabeth E Darragh
Event Type: Census Event Date: 1940
Event Place: Bellefonte, District 6, New Castle, Delaware, United States
Gender: Female
Age: 27
Marital Status: Married
Race (Original): White Race: White
Relationship to Head of Household: Wife
Birthplace: Delaware
Birth Year (Estimated): 1913
Last Place of Residence: Same Place
Household Role Gender Age Birthplace
Edward J Darragh Head M 33 Delaware
Elizabeth E Darragh Wife 27 Delaware
Eleanor Darragh Daug F 5 Delaware
Caroline Darragh Daug F 0 Delaware
——-
Paula Hoehn
January 8th, 2016 @ 5:35 pm
EXCLUSIVE
Well here’s his mother’s birth certificate,
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/08/ted-cruz-mother-birth-certificate/
January 8th, 2016 @ 5:54 pm
Looks like a good clean U.S. birth certificate to me. https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/08/ted-cruz-mother-birth-certificate/
Eleanor – born in 1935 in Delaware is Cruz’s mother.
January 8th, 2016 @ 6:03 pm
And Ted Cruz’s birth certificate,
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20130818-ted-cruz-born-a-citizen-of-canada-under-the-countrys-immigration-rules.ece
January 8th, 2016 @ 6:10 pm
Something is very, very fishy, I think were getting the same old BS. The names do not match. Can somebody tell me I’m seeing things.
January 8th, 2016 @ 7:10 pm
Dear Orly,
This is the first time I have seen this document which says it is the State of Delaware Standard Certificate of Birth for Eleanor Darragh, born on 11/23 1934, issued by Delaware on Jan 11, 1935.
https://postimg.org/image/6gh6lp3p7/
It is in this article:
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/08/ted-cruz-mother-birth-certificate/
Exclusive: Birth Certificate for Ted Cruz’s Mother
by Joel B. Pollak8 Jan 2016
Excerpt:
“Eleanor Darragh, mother of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)cr 97%, was born in Delaware on Nov. 23, 1934, establishing her citizenship by birth–and, according to U.S. law, that of her son, even though he was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, on Dec. 22, 1970.”
———
Paula Hoehn
January 8th, 2016 @ 7:28 pm
what names don’t match
January 8th, 2016 @ 7:31 pm
Dear Orly,
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/08/ted-cruz-parents-canada-voters-list/
Exclusive: 1974 Canadian Electors’ List Named Ted Cruz’s Parents
by Joel B. Pollak8 Jan 2016
Excerpt:
“A document uncovered by Breitbart News indicates that the parents of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)cr97% were named on a Calgary list of electors for Canada’s federal election of July 8, 1974.”
Excerpt:
“Ted Cruz’s parents are listed as “Cruz, Eleanor, Mrs.” and “Cruz, Raphael, self employed,” both at 920 Riverdale Avenue, South West in Calgary, Alberta.”
Excerpt:
“The document is a “preliminary list of electors,” and not a record of those who actually voted. Such lists were also prone to error, according to Breitbart News sources.”
Links to “preliminary list of electors”:
https://postimg.org/image/e9itnbabl/
https://postimg.org/image/ytww0gep9/
———
Paula Hoehn
January 9th, 2016 @ 6:57 am
There is no middle name of Elizabeth on her BC, did they not include this back then?
How could she have a last name of Wilson before marriage, and on her BC the last name of Darragh.
I’m a little confused here.
January 9th, 2016 @ 11:07 am
John’s right…WTF!
Am I reading this correctly: that his dad and mother were born here?????
But Cruz was born in Canada????
If this is so, then, he is still not eligible, since he has to have been born on American soil, but he was born in Canada????
Is this correct, Paula? Orly? He is still NOT eligible??? Right? Please advise.
January 9th, 2016 @ 11:24 am
Poster, Florence said it in her first sentence of her post!
And does the birth certificates that Paula has posted on…need to be “vetted?”
Cruz is still not eligible…he was born in Canada…that dual loyalty!
Boy, Cruz, Orly understands English a hell of a lot better than you do!
January 9th, 2016 @ 12:15 pm
It looks like his mother has no middle name by way they (The father & mother) filled out the BC form. Looks like the doctor filled out some of it or most of it, and they (her parents) only filled out the names. Elizabeth (the middle name) is not on the bottom where it say name of child. So, someone could say in court that his mother has no middle name. Looking at it also, is that both of his grandparents were born in the USA. Remember now on her BC (the mother) it has to list her parents name and where they were born. It baffles me though were did the name last name of Wilson come from on his BC.
On his BC, it states he was born in Canada. Of which this is correct. And His father was born in Cuba. Of which is correct.
So, in the end, he is not eligible to be president because he was born in Canada, and his father was born in Cuba period.
January 9th, 2016 @ 12:24 pm
Analyst,
When you read the mother’s BC, you have to remember that it is her parents that you see were born in Wilmington, Delaware. Not his the (son). Yes it seems that his grandparents are citizens of the USA, but not him (T. Cruz).
January 9th, 2016 @ 12:48 pm
Here’s Ted preaching the sermon, talk about Hippocratic.
https://youtu.be/XdK7a8EuUPc
Also, I think it was JB Williams that said, that Ted Cruz is not eligible to even be a senator, so how is that.
January 9th, 2016 @ 1:11 pm
To Analyst,
According to Ted Cruz’s Canadian Certificate of Birth, his father Rafael Cruz was born in Matanzas, Cuba and his mother Eleanor Darragh was born in Wilmington, Delaware.
I believe Eleanor was married to Wilson before her marriage to Cruz.
See: https://thisculturalchristian.blogspot.com/2013/08/sen-ted-cruz-born-out-of-wedlock-his.html
Excerpt:
“One has to wonder when both his parents Eleanor Darragh Wilson and Rafael Bienvenido Cruz divorced their spouses of previous marriages.”
“Eleanor Darragh Wilson has two daughters from her previous marriage who used to come visit mommy and live with mommy and step daddy Rafael in summer, meaning that Eleanor D. Wilson’s ex-husband had primary custody of the children during the school year or were living with grandparents.”
—-
Regarding Ted Cruz’s eligibility under the US Constitution to be President, I believe he is ineligible, that it takes 2 citizen parents at the time of child’s birth on American soil in order to be eligible, therefore I think Ted Cruz strikes out on 2 counts, his father was a citizen of Cuba at the time of Ted’s birth (and possibly both his parents had taken out Canadian citizenship), and the birth was in Canada not the US.
I will not vote for Cruz in any event. To me it is the height of hypocrisy for Cruz to tout his “expertise of the Constitution” and still try to pull off the same charade as Obama has done.
—-
Paula Hoehn
January 9th, 2016 @ 2:19 pm
This answers my question then about where does Wilson come from.
January 10th, 2016 @ 3:09 am
Why Democrats would not Challenge Ted Cruz eligibility for President?
1.The democrats might decide not to challenge Ted Cruz eligibility. As a Republican nominee Cruz would not be as formidable challenger to Hillary Clinton as would be Trump. Democrats might feel far happier with Ted Cruz as challenger to Clinton. Why would they challenge Ted Cruz eligibility, thereby helping Mr. Trump?
2.Ted Cruz eligibility fails under Vattel‘s definition of natural born citizen: both parents must be citizens at the time of the candidate birth. This definition fails for Ted Cruz (Father not USA Citizen) and fails for Mr. Obama (father Kenyan, and his mother was not yet citizen at the time of Obama’s birth birth). Why democrats would want to challenge Cruz with the same issue Mr. Obama has been challenged? The democrats would rather accept Ted Cruz bogus definition of Natural Born Citizen, which Mr. Obama might hope to satisfy more easily than the Vattel’s one See below.
3.Furthermore, Cruz already sides with democrats, by NOT addressing Mr. Obama eligibility. If Ted Cruz loves this country, he would have worked for removal of Mr. Obama from WH. Just raising the issue of eligibility for Mr. Obama while Ted Cruz is in the Senate, would have removed the ineligible Federal employee (Mr. Obama) from the WH on the basis of USA Federal Code for removal of ineligible Federal employees. This would have been far more beneficial for USA, than Ted Cruz unfounded play for becoming USA President.
Ted Cruz removal from among 2016 Presidential candidates should not be left to up to democrat politicians. The Conservatives and other Constitutionalists should challenge Ted Cruz eligibility. No One else might.
What is Ted Cruz claim for his eligibility to be USA President?
He quotes that the 1st congress made a specific interpretation of the constitution declaring that a child born to an American citizen in a foreign country is a “natural born citizen”. The key of this idea is that Ted speaks about a single parent being a citizen is sufficient for the child to be
natural born.
But the definition of natural born citizen that have been used after the adoption of the Constitution and after the 1st congress, was De Vattel’s definition based on both parents being citizens of USA.
The way Ted Cruz presents the case for his eligibility appears to be obfuscation, rather than clear statement that he has a challenge.
Cruz presents the situation as he is clearly eligible, while he is playing with words only. This is Cruz’s lack of integrity.
Ted Cruz has also flip flopped on TPP. Cruz is a politician and is changing his priorities as a situation changes for Cruz.
On the other hand, Mr. Trump has 40 years of business integrity without complaints ever heard.
I have no trust in Ted Cruz. I think democrats would nod not Challenge Ted Cruz. Constitutionalists must do that.
January 10th, 2016 @ 9:14 am
What is Ted Cruz claim for his eligibility to be USA President?
He quotes that the 1st congress made a specific interpretation of the constitution declaring that a child born to an American citizen in a foreign country is a “natural born citizen”. The key of this idea is that Ted speaks about a single parent being a citizen is sufficient for the child to be
natural born.
Ok, look at the 1795 Naturalization law taking out the words in naturalization law of 1790 which would have required approval of 3/4 of the States. Same thing with McCain and Obama. No authority for what Congress did without approval of 3/4 of the States.
Look at every naturalization law which is about citizens not natural born citizens because Congress had no authority to approve without authority of 3/4 of the States as a constitutional amendment.
January 11th, 2016 @ 1:35 pm
To Paula:…the post I made in the category above this tells of how the parents of cruz were found on Canadian voting rolls.
And it says that both could only vote, if they were Canadian citizens!
This nukes Cruz off the map, since now we see that his mother also had dual loyalty!!!
Geez-us, Cruz, who will trust you again???
January 11th, 2016 @ 10:26 pm
There are 3 challenges that constitute the scope of Ted Cruz eligibility issues:
1)Has Ted Cruz acquired US Citizenship due to the conditions of his Birth in Canada in 1970?
2)Is Ted Cruz natural born Citizen from the point of you of his eligibility for POTUS?
3)Has Ted Cruz had allegiance to other than USA country within 14 years of becoming POTUS?
Analyzing 1) may take time, but Cruz may argue that he USA Citizenship from his mother. Yet, she was a Canadian and possibly had USA citizenship. So if, Cruz got Canadian citizenship through his mother in addition to his (possible) USA Citizenship, his USA citizenship cannot be regarded as contributing to Cruz allegiance to USA. (from the point of Presidential eligibility requirements)
Analyzing 2). Cruz does satisfy De Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen, because his father had no USA citizenship at the time of Cruz birth. However Cruz argues that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen (De Vattel) was revised by the 1st Congress, 1790. But that is not true. The 1st Congress was not considering Natural Born Citizen issue from the point of view of the well-known (natural born citizen) requirement from Constitution Article II on Presidential eligibility.
The 1st Congress was looking into how a person acquires US Citizenship if he/she was born abroad. 1st Congress was not revising the scope of Natural Born Citizen clause from the Presidential eligibility article. Yet, the 1st Congress used Natural Born Citizen term in its formulation of conditions to obtain USA citizenship. In 1995, the words Natural Born have been deleted from the language 1St Congress conditions needed to get USA Citizenship.
The De Vattel definition of Natural Born citizen has been used in USA courts after 1st Congressd. Cruz reference to 1st Congress revising the natural Born Citizen from De Vattel is misinformation. Cruz fails this Constitutional requirement from Constitution Article II on Presidential eligibility.
Analyzing 3). Cruz has renounced his Canadian Citizenship in 2014. He has Double Citizenship for decades up to this election for President. He should not be allowed to become a registered candidate.
In this video, closer to the beginning Cruz speaks about his eligibility. He quotes that the 1st congress made a specific interpretation of the constitution declaring that a child born to an American citizen in a foreign country is a “natural born citizen”. He opines that since many of those who voted for this have been members of the constitutional convention and hence understood what was meant.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/01/07/cruz_mccain_questioning_my_citizenship_because_he_secretary_supports_rubio.html
The video starts from a short mentioning of North Korea recent test of a hydrogen bomb.
The members of the 1st Congress did understood Natural Born Citizen as a precondition to become a President. The topic of Presidential eligibility was not considered by this Congress. This a great example of Obfuscation easily dispensed by the Senator Ted Cruz.
January 12th, 2016 @ 2:16 pm
Masada: Excellent rebuttal!
January 13th, 2016 @ 1:41 am
Davey Crockett: my recent post #58 is not a rebuttal of any other post among the comments on Dr. Taitz topic.
My post is related to #55 and #56. #56 refers to the 1st Congress. # 57 refers to 1795 Congress.
I have learned that 1795 Congress has corrected the natural born language removing “natural born” words from the 1st Congress naturalization (that is citizenship acquisition) clause for children born abroad.
#55 is also my post. It and Steve Wittlake post #56 have influenced my more recent post #58.
However, there are a variety of views on Ted Cruz eligibility for. Attorney Mario Apuzzo basically has the same view as Dr. Taitz. A well-known Harvard (Law) Professor Laurence Tribe considers Cruz ineligible for POTUS according to Cruz own views of strict constructivist interpretation of Constitution expressed when Cruz was Tribe’s student at Harvard.
At a website such WND different people quote different sources for their opinions. One such article is in Harvard Review (March 2015) by Neal Katyal and Paul Clement.
This article agrees with Cruz on his eligibility, but ignores De Vattel requirement of Natural Born Citizen. Mario Apuzzo has refuted the Harvard Review article.
Cruz is unlikely to withdraw his candidacy unless his donors will stop supporting him.
What Mr. Trump could do for this?
A good thing Mr.Trump might consider is to bring up a case for the House Judicial Committee for ssurpation of WH by Mr. Obama and for Mr. Cruz and Mr. Rubio potential usurpation of WH, since the eligibility for Cruz and Rubio has not been settled prior to the 2016 election year.