But they are NOT Natural Born Citizens!
Will we TRAMPLE the Constitution yet AGAIN?
Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal and Ted Cruz - ELIGIBLE?
"There are two ends of the spectrum as which just about everyone agrees: (1) A person born in the United States to parents both of whom are United States citizens is a “natural born Citizen”; and (2) a person born outside the United States to parents neither of whom is a United States citizen is not a “natural born Citizen” even if citizenship later is obtained through naturalization. These are what law professor Lawrence Solum refers to as “cases of inclusion and exclusion.
Rubio, Jindal and Cruz, as did Obama, fall between those points of inclusion and exclusion. Rubio and Jindal were born in the United States to parents neither of whom was a United States citizen at the time; Cruz was born in Canada to parents one of whom (his mother) was a United States citizen.
Under the law existing at the time of their birth, each became a citizen of the United States at birth. Rubio and Jindal by the 14th Amendment, Cruz by statute.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/natural-born-citizens-marco-rubio-bobby-jindal-ted-cruz/
Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution provides, in pertinent part (emphasis added):
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.
NATURAL BORN CITIZEN "HAS" been defined - by the U.S. Senate in 2008!
In case you are in doubt about Natural Born Citizenship requirements - don't forget that in 2008 The US SENATE investigated Prez Candidate John McCain on HIS natural born status.Then Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton sat on that hearing and signed SR 511 attesting to their findings on McCain and the definition of Natural Born Citizen.
READ Senate Resolution 511 wherein they defined McCain to be a "natural born citizen." They did this based upon the criteria that John McCain was found to have
1. Been born on American soil or a U.S. possession and
2. BOTH parents were American citizens at time of birth.
Bottom Line:
Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz - COULD NOT hold up to the standards of SR 511.
Of course we STILL do not know if Barack Obama was even BORN in the United States.
FACT:
1. No hospital ANYWHERE in the US will officially claim Obama's birth. Obama sent a letter to Kapiolani Hospital in Hawaii stating he was born there. The PDF (proven fraud) of a BC was posted by the White House on the official WH site stating he was born at Kapiolani - yet there is not even a plaque or a monument of any kind at the hospital claiming that Obama was born there and to date not a single hospital official has claimed it either.
2. Democrat (and friend of the Obama family) Gov. Neal Abercrombie ran on the campaign promise that he would personally produce Obama's Hawaii BC to "prove" he was born there. He was in office for four years and NEVER produced it - nor did he even handle it or see it - according to his own admission.
3. The Ambassador from Kenya, Obama's paternal grandmother, Obama's step sister - ALL claimed publicly that Obama was "born in Kenya." The Ambassador said, "everyone knows where he was born - in the exact village and place." His grandmother and step-sister said "I was present at the birth."
Funny - the ONLY people who "officially" and "publicly" claim that Obama was born in their country are people from Kenya.
4. Obama's own publishers - for 17 years - claimed in writing that Obama was "born in Kenya" and "raised in Hawaii." They changed their statement when he was running for President and the fact was pointed out by the alternative media.
5. Even IF he WAS born in Hawaii - the PDF BC that the White House placed on the internet shows that his father was not a citizen of the U.S. at the time of his birth. According to SR 511 - which Obama signed - Obama is NOT eligible to be President.
God help us!
ReplyDeleteCongress, media, courts - all abandoned WE THE PEOPLE. Guess what we are SUPPOSED to do now? Read the Declaration of Independence - the instructions are right there.
ReplyDeleteRead Rogers v Bellei. Ted is a naturalized Citizen. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/815/case.html#F1
ReplyDeletehttp://petesresearchonnaturalborncitizenship.blogspot.com/
From the opinion of the court.
6. A contrary holding would convert what is congressional generosity into something unanticipated and obviously undesired by the Congress. Our National Legislature indulged the foreign-born child with presumptive citizenship, subject to subsequent satisfaction of a reasonable residence requirement, rather than to deny him citizenship outright, as concededly it had the power to do, and relegate the child, if he desired American citizenship, to the more arduous requirements of the usual naturalization process. The plaintiff here would force the Congress to choose between unconditional conferment of United States citizenship at birth and deferment of citizenship until a condition precedent is fulfilled. We are not convinced that the Constitution requires so rigid a choice. If it does, the congressional response seems obvious.
7. Neither are we persuaded that a condition subsequent in this area impresses one with "second-class citizenship." That cliche is too handy and too easy, and, like most cliches, can be misleading. That the condition subsequent may be beneficial is apparent in the light
Page 401 U. S. 836
of the conceded fact that citizenship to this plaintiff was fully deniable. The proper emphasis is on what the statute permits him to gain from the possible starting point of noncitizenship, not on what he claims to lose from the possible starting point of full citizenship to which he has no constitutional right in the first place. His citizenship, while it lasts, although conditional, is not "second-class."
From the dissenting opinion.
ReplyDeleteAlthough those Americans who acquire their citizenship
Page 401 U. S. 840
under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word "naturalize" in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," Art. I, § 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen. The first congressional exercise of this power, entitled "An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," was passed in 1790 at the Second Session of the First Congress. It provided in part:
"And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."
1 Stat. 103, 104. This provision is the earliest form of the statute under which Bellei acquired his citizenship. Its enactment as part of a "Rule of Naturalization" shows, I think, that the First Congress conceived of this and most likely all other purely statutory grants of citizenship as forms or varieties of naturalization. However, the clearest expression of the idea that Bellei and others similarly situated should for constitutional purposes be considered as naturalized citizens is to be found in United States v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U. S. 649(1898):
"The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution . . . contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere
Page 401 U. S. 841
fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts."
169 U.S. at 169 U. S. 702-703. The Court in Wong Kim Ark thus stated a broad and comprehensive definition of naturalization. As shown in Wong Kim Ark, naturalization, when used in its constitutional sense, is a generic term describing and including within its meaning all those modes of acquiring American citizenship other than birth in this country. All means of obtaining American citizenship which are dependent upon a congressional enactment are forms of naturalization. This inclusive definition has been adopted in several opinions of this Court besides United States v. Wong Kim Ark, supra. Thus, in Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 167 (1875), the Court said:
"Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. . . . [N]ew citizens may be born, or they may be created by naturalization."