Interview by Attorney Orly Taitz given to US News and World Report in relation to dual citizenship and eligibility to US Presidency
Posted on | March 24, 2015 | 40 Comments
Ted Cruz Inherits ‘Birthers’ With Presidential Bid
Canada-born Cruz may face lawsuits from the same people who questioned Obama’s eligibility.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, poses for photos at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., Monday.
Some of the loudest and most dogged skeptics of President Barack Obama satisfying the Constitution’s natural-born citizenship clause are now raising the same issue about Sen. Ted Cruz.
The Texas Republican announced Monday he’s running for president and freely admits he was born in Calgary, Canada, in 1970 to an American mother and a Cuban father who later acquired U.S. citizenship.
The Constitution requires the president to be “a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.” The term “natural born citizen” is not defined in the Constitution, leading to occasional — and still unresolved — legal questions.
The issue surfaced during the 1968 GOP presidential candidacy of Michigan Gov. George Romney, who was born in Mexico, and the 2000 and 2012 candidacies of Arizona Sen. John McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone when it was in U.S. possession.
[RELATED: Cruz’s Conservative Crusade]
Orly Taitz, a leading and litigious member of what became known as the “birther” movement during Obama’s presidency, says she likes Cruz, but she probably will file a lawsuit if he becomes president without a federal judge declaring him natural born.
“I’m very consistent in what I’m saying: I’m saying there’s the same issue with Obama and Ted Cruz,” she says.
Taitz — a Soviet-born dentist-turned-lawyer — says two other prospective presidential candidates, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Gov. Bobby Jindal, R-La., may also be ineligible to be president as their parents were immigrants, which may make Rubio and Jindal dual citizens.
“Maybe those three candidates should stick together and file one legal action seeking declaratory relief,” she says.
Taitz appreciates Cruz’s sharp-elbowed approach to his fellow congressmen and to Obama and likes his tax plans, but says she believes “natural born citizen” means someone born without dual citizenship.
[FLASHBACK: Birthers Try to Keep Obama Off Arizona Ballot]
Conservative legal activist Larry Klayman, who last year asked the Department of Homeland Security to begin deportation proceedings against Obama, meanwhile, says Cruz definitely is not eligible to be president.
“I think very highly of Senator Cruz,” he says. “But he is not eligible to be president as he was not born in the United States or its territories to ‘citizen parents,’ as is required by the Supreme Court case of Minor v. Happersett and other related law.”
That 1875 decision addressed the term as part of a ruling against a constitutional right to women’s suffrage.
Rick Tyler, a spokesman for Cruz’s presidential campaign, however, says eligibility is a non-issue, pointing to a Harvard Law Review article by former U.S. solicitors general Paul Clement and Neal Katyal that concluded Cruz is a natural-born citizen, leaning in large part on the Naturalization Act of 1790, which defined the term as including the children of citizens living overseas.
[TRACKER: Visits From 2016 Contenders to Primary States]
Tyler said the law review article “puts this issue to rest.”
Cruz renounced his right to Canadian citizenship last year after reports he likely acquired it automatically at birth.
Unlike Cruz, Obama was born in the U.S. to an American mother and Kenyan father, according to a birth certificate released by Hawaii and the White House in 2011. Skeptics say the document’s a fake and he probably was born in another country. Taitz alleges Obama also stole a dead man’s Social Security number.
Billionaire Republican Donald Trump, who helped popularize “birther” ideas in 2012 as he considered his own bid for the presidency, also is showing some consistency with Cruz. “It’s a hurdle; somebody could certainly look at it very seriously,” he told WNYW-TV Monday.
[RELATED: Donald Trump Donates to Ted Cruz]
“He was born in Canada. If you know and when we all studied our history lessons, you are supposed to be born in this country, so I just don’t know how the courts will rule on this,” Trump said.
A spokeswoman for 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, did not respond to a request for comment.
One option Cruz may 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 hard-charging 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 did not respond to requests for comment.
SEE PHOTOS
Editorial Cartoons on Ted Cruz
A possible Senate resolution, however, appears unlikely to quiet the most persistent eligibility crusaders.
Taitz says such a resolution would have “zero legal value.” But she says her recent party change from Republican to independent means she’ll have to wait to file an eligibility lawsuit about Cruz until after the Republican nomination, should he win it.
Tags: Barack Obama > Donald Trump > Dr. Orly Taitz > eligibility for President > ESQ > Ted Cruz
Comments
40 Responses to “Interview by Attorney Orly Taitz given to US News and World Report in relation to dual citizenship and eligibility to 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
March 24th, 2015 @ 2:41 pm
I’ve got some real techie problems here with this post…the establishment is messing with me!
Cruz, Jindal, Rubio, and Santorum are NOT eligible to run for the Oval Office!
Geez-us!
March 24th, 2015 @ 2:46 pm
Now we have a real Donnybrook in the making.
These guys know they’re (NOT) eligible. So here’s my summary of what they’re trying to pull, along with Boehner:…
They are going to test the Constitution and then, this will make all of them want to “RE-DO” the Constitution, to make it more palatable for them to re-construct it to suit the NWO??!
We dare not let this happen–EVER!!!
March 24th, 2015 @ 3:40 pm
So, we can count this paul clement and neal katal amoung the multitude of the many liars and traitors within our government,not just misrepresenting facts but re-writing history and redefining or ignoring the principles of our Constitution.
These people have no allegiance to this country. They open our white house to the same invasion as our borders.
March 24th, 2015 @ 3:46 pm
WOW!
8 YRS GOVERNED BY AN INDONESIAN
NOW A CANADIAN WANTS THE NEXT 4
BLOODLESS,RADICAL GOVT TAKEOVER
WHILE THE PEOPLE VOTE AND THE PRESS SMILES.
MAYBE TIME TO MOVE
ARTICLE 2 SECTION 1
ENFORCE IT YOU WHO SWEAR TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION.
March 24th, 2015 @ 3:50 pm
I AM A FRIEND OF ORLY
March 24th, 2015 @ 3:53 pm
who is Paul Clement and who is Neal Katal?
March 24th, 2015 @ 4:54 pm
re: Paul Clement and Neal Katyal. See this article.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/03/12/legal-experts-cruzs-canadian-past-shouldnt-keep-him-out-of-the-oval-office/
“Legal experts: Cruz’s Canadian birth won’t keep him out of the Oval Office”
Two of the top lawyers for the Obama and Bush administrations agree on this: Sen. Ted Cruz can become president. Legally speaking, anyway.
Paul D. Clement, former solicitor general for President George W. Bush, and Neal Katyal, former acting solicitor general for President Obama, penned a piece for the Harvard Law Review tackling the question of what the Constitution means when it says that the president must be at least 35 years old, a U.S. resident for at least 14 years and a “natural born Citizen.”
“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,” they wrote. “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.”
Cruz was born in a Canadian hospital to a mother who was a U.S. citizen. But he’s only the latest potential presidential candidate who has had his qualifications questioned. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was born in the Panama Canal Zone. Former senator Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.) was born in Arizona before it was a state. Gov. George Romney (R-Mich.) was delivered in Mexico to U.S. residents. All were qualified to serve, Katyal and Clement say, basing their legal arguments on British common law and enactments of the First Congress.
The First Congress, they noted, established that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were themselves citizens at birth “and explicitly recognized that such children were ‘natural born citizens.’
“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,” Katyal and Clement write. “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.” [snip]
Paul Clement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Clement
Neal Katyal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Katyal
March 24th, 2015 @ 5:07 pm
Orly in answer to your question:
“n short, Katyal and Clement’s article lacks any critical research and reasoning and is nothing more than an attempt to convince the reader that Senator Cruz is a natural born citizen because they said so and the reader has to believe that because they were former heads of the Office of Solicitor General of the United States.”
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 13, 2015
https://puzo1.blogspot.com/
*************
The full article:
Friday, March 13, 2015
A Response to Neil Katyal and Paul Clement on the Meaning of a Natural Born Citizen
A Response to Neil Katyal and Paul Clement on the Meaning of a Natural Born Citizen
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 13, 2015
I read the March 11, 2015 article entitled, “On the Meaning of a ‘Natural Born Citizen,” written by Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, found at 128 Harv.L.Rev.F 161, and accessed at https://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/ . The first sentence of the article says: “We have both had the privilege of heading the Office of the Solicitor General.” The article repeats the existing talking points offered in support of the constitutional eligibility of Senator Ted Cruz (all born citizens are natural born citizens) and offers nothing new. Mr. Cruz was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen (Cuban) father. I have written a recent article in which I conclude that Mr. Cruz is not a natural born citizen and therefore not eligible to be President because he does not satisfy the one and only common law definition of a natural born citizen confirmed by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), which is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. The article is entitled, “What Do President Obama and Senator Cruz Have In Common? They Are Both Not Natural Born Citizens,” accessed at https://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/02/what-do-president-obama-and-senator.html . Katyal and Clement maintain that any child who becomes a citizen at birth, regardless of where born or by what means, is a natural born citizen. They add that since Mr. Cruz became a citizen from the moment of birth and did not need any naturalization after birth he is a natural born citizen. But there is no historical and legal evidence which demonstrates that this is how the Framers defined a natural born citizen and the authors surely have not presented that evidence even if it did exist.
The authors’ argument suffers from the fallacy of bald assertion. They provide no convincing evidence for their position on who is included as an Article II natural born citizen. They do not examine what was the source of the Framers’ definition of an Article II natural born citizen, let alone what was the definition of a natural born citizen when the Framers drafted and adopted the Constitution and when it was eventually ratified. They ignore so much of the historical and legal record in coming to their bald conclusions. For a discussion of this historical and legal evidence, see the numerous articles that I have written and posted at my blog, https://puzo1.blogspot.com .
They gloss over what the Framers’ purpose was for requiring the President and Commander in Chief of the Military to be a natural born citizen. They do not engage in any real discussion on what the Framers were trying to achieve through the clause. They dismiss all debate on the subject of foreign influence by flatly stating without any evidence: “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.”
The authors cite to the Naturalization Act of 1790 and ignore the fact that the Naturalization Act of 1795, with the lead of then-Rep. James Madison and with the approval of President George Washington, repealed it and specifically changed “shall be considered as natural born citizens” to “shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” This is even more a blatant omission given that they argue that the English naturalization statutes referred to persons born out of the King’s dominion to British subject parents as “natural born subjects.” They fail to address this critical change made by our early Congress, critical because Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides that a “Citizen” of the United States was eligible to be President only if born before the adoption of the Constitution and that thereafter only a “natural born Citizen” was so eligible. Hence, Congress referring to one as a citizen rather than a natural born citizen, given the presidential eligibility requirements of Article II, was a serious thing. They do not discuss what the language of the 1790 Act, “shall be considered as,” meant. They fail to address the issue that this was naturalization language and nothing more. They fail to discuss whether Congress even had the constitutional power to make anyone born out of the United States a natural born citizen, if that was Congress’s intent in the first place.
They assert without demonstrating that the English common law supports their position. But they totally ignore that under the English common law, only persons born in the King’s dominion and under his jurisdiction were natural born subjects and that those born out of the dominion and therefore out of his jurisdiction became subjects only through a naturalization Act of Parliament.
They cite to Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, but they do not cite to Emer de Vattel and his The Laws of Nations (1758) (1797) or Minor, two leading sources that inform on U.S. citizenship. Both Vattel and Minor defined a natural born citizen as a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens. What is incredible is that they cite U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) to demonstrate that British statutes called children born out of the King’s dominion to subject parents “natural born.” But they fail to tell the reader that Wong Kim Ark considered children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents to be naturalized by acts of Congress. In fact, they give virtually no discussion of the Wong Kim Ark case because they know that the case said that under the English common law, only children born in the King’s dominion and under his jurisdiction were natural born subjects and that any child born out of that dominion needed an act of Parliament to naturalize him or her. They also fail to discuss the U.S. Supreme Court case of Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), in which both majority and dissent said the same as Wong Kim Ark which was that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents become citizens of the United States only through the grace of Congress who made them citizens through a naturalization Act without which those children would be aliens. It simply defies logic and good reason to conclude that a person who would not be a citizen at all without a naturalization act of Congress is a natural born citizen.
Katyal and Clement argue that John Jay had children born out of the United States while he was on diplomatic assignment and that he would not have disqualified his own children from being natural born citizens. This is a really baseless point since Jay’s children would have been born out of the United States to parents who were serving the national defense of the United States and therefore reputed born in the United States. Likewise, they present the John McCain situation as proof for their position. But they fail to realize that John McCain was born in Panama to U.S. citizen parents who were serving the national defense of the United States which makes him reputed born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents and therefore a natural born citizen under the one and only common law definition of a natural born citizen as confirmed by unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor. See Vattel, Section 217 (children born out of the country to citizen parents serving in the armies of the state are reputed born in the country). They give the examples of Senator Barry Goldwater and Governor George Romney who they say were eligible to serve as President although neither was born within a state. The argument is meritless, for they were both born to U.S. citizen parents in U.S. sovereign territory subject to no foreign power and hence were born in part of the country known as the United States, all of which made them natural born citizens under the common law definition of a natural born citizen.
The authors conclude without demonstrating: “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.” They simply make this conclusion without having shown how their position is valid given the historical and legal record.
The authors also show contempt to the constitutional requirement that the President has to be a natural born citizen and for any person who dare raise any such issue. For example, they say: “simply because he was delivered at a hospital abroad,” rather than saying that he was born in a foreign nation; “born in a Canadian hospital,” rather than saying that he was born in Canada; “[d]espite the happenstance of a birth across the border;” they call arguments with which they do not agree “spurious;” and they consider objections to candidate’s eligibility as “specious objections to candidates eligibility,” as if no one ever made any valid argument.
In short, Katyal and Clement’s article lacks any critical research and reasoning and is nothing more than an attempt to convince the reader that Senator Cruz is a natural born citizen because they said so and the reader has to believe that because they were former heads of the Office of Solicitor General of the United States.
March 24th, 2015 @ 5:23 pm
https://www.redstate.com/diary/setonmotley/2015/03/23/fcc-delivers-latest-dose-obama-cronyism/
I wanted to get this information to you.
March 24th, 2015 @ 5:23 pm
While Cruz received U.S. citizenship through his American mother, he was a Canadian citizen by virtue of his birth, the Dallas Morning News discovered in 2013.
“Cruz formally renounced his citizenship in an official “Canadian Renunciation Letter” on May 14, 2014.”
https://7online.com/news/why-canadian-born-ted-cruz-can-be-president-/570337/
March 24th, 2015 @ 5:26 pm
5th circuit april 17th for commie appeal
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/appeals-court-sets-april-hearing-obama-immigration-action-29882249
March 24th, 2015 @ 5:47 pm
i heard Obama got his appeal expedited..
if you didn’t hear yet..
this cant be good?
March 24th, 2015 @ 6:19 pm
“One option Cruz may pursue is a Senate resolution declaring him natural born.” Good grief! Congress must obey the Constitution just like the rest of us. They don’t have the authority to declare someone a natural born citizen. That would be yet another violation of the Constitution. You can’t eliminate a violation of the Constitution by committing another violation of the Constitution.
March 24th, 2015 @ 6:59 pm
Ted Cruz: The establishment’s choice as a fake opposition candidate
https://www.dailypaul.com/335553/ted-cruz-the-establishments-choice-as-a-fake-opposition-candidate
March 24th, 2015 @ 7:05 pm
What, Constitutional Article II Eligibility?
In fact the Courts have spoken — including the Supreme Court.
With deafening SILENCE!
SILENCE is their message.
Innumerable, meritorious, sound lawsuits seeking a ruling on Barack Obama’s eligibility have simply been pushed off the table — “avoided” as a Supreme Court Justice said.
There has been ample time and opportunity to decide this issue with Barack Obama, and unless and until that is done, challenges to other candidates are only going to be used by left wing political opportunists, suddenly claiming principles they have rejected.
With the puppet courts who let the last 8 years pass, rejecting every honest call to issue a decision, it would be a fool’s errand to expect those same courts to produce a principled ruling now. They have spoken. They have no concern for principle. They have failed.
March 24th, 2015 @ 7:53 pm
A Response to Neil Katyal and Paul Clement on the Meaning of a Natural Born Citizen:
https://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-response-to-neil-katyal-and-paul.html
March 24th, 2015 @ 7:59 pm
more 5th circuit news
https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/03/appeals-court-sets-arguments-on-obama-immigration-204490.html
March 24th, 2015 @ 8:44 pm
let’s hope they didn’t get to these judges of the 5th circuit
March 24th, 2015 @ 9:47 pm
Lord, please let Orly work a miracle.
We need a MAJOR MIRACLE to protect us from this
mess. Cruz is a demon.
Let Orly work her magic!!!
Scream it loud, Danno!!!
March 25th, 2015 @ 3:01 am
Natural born citizens
*do not require Congress to vote on their birth.
*do not require embassy staff to document their birth, as it occurred in the states of the Union or the federal territories.
March 25th, 2015 @ 3:26 am
Only the president must be natural born for he commands the armies. He cannot have divided loyalties because he will kill us all
March 25th, 2015 @ 5:58 am
Millions of Americans are aware of the massive Obama deception-the truth will eventually come out and the foreign installers of Obama want to protect Obama by allowing these other unqualifieds to run as a diversion so as to legitimize Obamas fraud on America-
March 25th, 2015 @ 6:18 am
Cruz’s situation should make Obama’s situation an open book. At least Cruz is not hiding his birth credentials albeit he is doing some obfuscation.
March 25th, 2015 @ 6:23 am
These three, Cruz, Rubio,running for the presidency, knowing they are not eligible, shows that they are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the voters. They are dishonest.
March 25th, 2015 @ 6:24 am
Sorry I should have said “these two”
March 25th, 2015 @ 7:08 am
Cruz might not be eligible for the presidency but I’ll take him anytime over Hillary. Let’s be practical over this issue. Any other Republican candidate like Dole, McCain or Romney (the Good Old Boys) will be rejected by conservatives and independents and we’ll be stuck with Hillary or worse
March 25th, 2015 @ 8:25 am
that is true. Though, according to polling, all of the GOP candidates are behind Hillary. Scott Walker is at the head of the GOP group of candidates
March 25th, 2015 @ 9:46 am
HE IS A LIAR …. if you elongate the i in liar and then the a as an uh sound then you get lawyer…I MEAN LAWYER.
SO HE IS TRYING TO WEASEL HIMSELF BY SAYING HIS MOM WAS AMERICAN AND HIS FATHER cuban NATURALIZED american SO NOW HE IS NATURAL BORN…
Is this the Liiiiaaaaar logic we have to get from him?????
March 25th, 2015 @ 10:54 am
Border not supposed to report illegal scumbags from somalia!!
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/03/border-security-contractor-administration-is-deceiving-public-on-middle-eastern-illegals-apprehended-at-border/
March 25th, 2015 @ 12:53 pm
@ #7 Sandy Beach & #8 courage;
I appreciate the both of you answering that for me. I haven’t the patience and shamefully the background to have been so explicit.
March 25th, 2015 @ 1:51 pm
Well, the fact that Cruz was born (in Canada) does need to be examined…as Canada is (NOT) an American Holding!!!!!
And if he was born of a Cuban father, then, these two items would stop him, IMO!!!
How far do we open this situation up, and how far do we figure out who is…and who isn’t eligible to run for the Oval Office???
This is extremely serious and we need to pick this item apart and make sure we do not come at the Constitution from both the left and right!
March 25th, 2015 @ 1:57 pm
And…last Friday, I was attending a meeting of people who were discussing state legislature issues…and…
In the discussion, someone said that Bobby Jindal was coming to town, to hold a prayer breakfast.
And I mentioned how I/we thought that he is one of the (4) men running for the Oval Office that was not eligible!!!!
Then, our host said yes he is! And I declared that he wasn’t…due to our checking on this info in the last few years, to make the statement that: Jindal, Rubio, Cruz, and Santorum were not eligible to run for the Oval Office!
So, now where do we get the official info on this…so that it won’t trash the Constitution, for real??? Is there any official info on this, as of right now????
March 25th, 2015 @ 4:09 pm
Naturalization Act of 1795 say that if one parent is a American citizen, when a child is born you are just a American citizen and not a Natural born citizen. So Cruz,is just a citizen of thye United States. NOT ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT.
March 25th, 2015 @ 4:17 pm
In my earlier post (#7), I didn’t include the link to the Harvard Law Review piece that was mentioned in the article.
“Paul D. Clement, former solicitor general for President George W. Bush, and Neal Katyal, former acting solicitor general for President Obama, penned a piece for the Harvard Law Review tackling the question of what the Constitution means when it says that the president must be at least 35 years old, a U.S. resident for at least 14 years and a “natural born Citizen.”
For those that didn’t to to the Washington Post to read the entire article, here is the link to the Harvard Law Review piece.
https://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/
March 25th, 2015 @ 5:35 pm
Katyal and clement are right. The Naturalization Act of 1790 does say that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were themselves citizen at birth ” and explicity recognized that such children were ” natural born citizens”
But it says that children born abroad to U.S.citizens. Citizens is plural and that mean father and mother, not one U.S.citizen and one foreigner.
The first congress seen that they made a mistake so Naturalization Act of 1795 an act to uniform rule of naturalization” paifed the twenty-fixth day of March, one thoufand feven hundred and ninety, be, the fame hereby repealed. Katyal and Clement can go pound sand.
March 25th, 2015 @ 7:37 pm
The authors’(Katyal and Clement) argument suffers from the fallacy of bald assertion. They provide no convincing evidence for their position on who is included as an Article II natural born citizen. They do not examine what was the source of the Framers’ definition of an Article II natural born citizen, let alone what was the definition of a natural born citizen when the Framers drafted and adopted the Constitution and when it was eventually ratified. They ignore so much of the historical and legal record in coming to their bald conclusions. For a discussion of this historical and legal evidence, see the numerous articles that I have written and posted at my blog, https://puzo1.blogspot.com
March 25th, 2015 @ 7:42 pm
“What Do President Obama and Senator Cruz Have In Common? They Are Both Not Natural Born Citizens,” accessed at https://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/02/what-do-president-obama-and-senator.html . Katyal and Clement maintain that any child who becomes a citizen at birth, regardless of where born or by what means, is a natural born citizen. They add that since Mr. Cruz became a citizen from the moment of birth and did not need any naturalization after birth he is a natural born citizen. But there is no historical and legal evidence which demonstrates that this is how the Framers defined a natural born citizen and the authors surely have not presented that evidence even if it did exist.
*****************
Last post and this one is from my #8 post
March 25th, 2015 @ 7:55 pm
Orly Taitz is a hero.
Taitz has done more to defend the US Constitution Article II than anyone over the past eight years. Her admirable work has been repeatedly ignored and rebuffed with contempt – even to the extent of being financially sanctioned by a Federal Court!
And all the while the passive and treasonous acquiesence of the entire Congress, the Courts, and justice systems has enabled the usurpation committed by Barack Obama.
Barack Obama has usurped the office of President by hiding and lying about his history, from his foreign background, his associations, his actual origins and connections, his intentions and more. While in office he has lied one day then done the opposite the next, again and again.
Remember the “most transparent administration ever” during which Obama exempted the White House from the Freedom of Information Act?
He has subverted the Constitution to attain the position he occupies. He has been astonishingly successful with public lies. I have never seen such a performance.
But even after he published a demonstrably fake birth certificate on the White House website, and he accidentally revealed his use of a fake Social Security number and his foreign origins, he was given an ongoing green light by those judges, agencies, and elected officials who should have guarded our country from this travesty.
Instead they were and are his enablers. With responsible people in those offices, Obama would be out of office and in jail now.
The horrible fact is that Obama and his enablers have won. They have mooted Article II. If there ever was a time it was relevant, it was during the past 8 years.
Orly Taitz, and others too, have done their best, but the fact is that, at least for the moment, Obama has won by the most unethical and obvious, but successful, performance imaginable.
Until and unless something finally happens to bring Obama to justice, Article II is moot. It may be dead.
It would be destructive to our country to now suddenly start applying it, even to the extent of seeking a declaratory judgement, in regards to any Presidential candidate.
I will change my mind on this the day Obama is called to account for what he has done to our Constitution. But I don’t know who is going to do that, since the courts, the Congress and the justice officials have all been complicit.
Here is the bottom line.
In no way would it now be fair to suddenly start applying Article II any differently than it has been during Obama’s usurpation. Justice requires an equal playing field and, through his enablers, Obama has erased that.
So in the 2016 election, Article II is off the table. It was off the table in 2008. It was off the table in 2012. So it is off the table in 2016.
I will support the candidate who will do the best job to defend the United States.
March 25th, 2015 @ 11:24 pm
Rafael “Ted” Cruz is a natural born citizen — of Canada.
He held Canadian citizenship for over 40 years. Only a few months ago did he finally decide, for reasons of political ambition, to renounce his loyalty to Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors.
Apart from his opportunism, we have to question his loyalties.
His supporters claim he is ‘eligible’ because his mother was born in the States. Guess what? Obama’s mother was born in the States.
Either we have wasted the last eight years, or NEITHER Cruz nor Obama is eligible. We have to be intellectually consistent.
At least the colossal egotist Trump has attacked Cruz for ineligibility. Where is Joe Arpaio? Thank God for Orly leading the new fight!
April 16th, 2015 @ 7:41 am
Fantastic beat ! I wish to apprentice at the same time as you amend your site, how could i subscribe for a blog site?
The account aided me a appropriate deal. I have been tiny bit
familiar of this your broadcast offered bright transparent idea