Tweet
Obama eligibility skeptic goes public on Cruz
Congressman: Case more about documents than birthplace
WND
Garth Kant
8/19/2013
Excerpt:
WASHINGTON – To hear Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, describe it, the difference between President Obama and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas – on the question of their eligibility for the highest office in the land – may be a case of comparing apples and oranges.
The congressman said with Cruz, it is a legal question of whether he is eligible to serve as president – whereas the issue with Obama is not really about where he was born, but whether his documentation is authentic.
Cruz released a copy of his birth certificate Sunday to the Dallas Morning News, as some have begun questioning the possible presidential contender’s eligibility, just as many have questioned Obama’s eligibility since 2008 when the argument was first raised by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
The Cruz birth certificate shows he was born in Canada in 1970 to an American mother, which gave him American citizenship.
Obama, on the other hand, is the subject of Stockman’s proposed legislation calling for a congressional investigation of both the president’s constitutional eligibility and the authenticity of the birth certificate he released to show he was born in Hawaii.
In an exclusive interview with WND, Stockman said, in the case of Obama, it is more of a question about the validity of the documentation as well as his forthrightness, whereas with Cruz, it is more of a matter for legal and constitutional scholars to decide. - (bold emphasis added in the preceding two paragraphs)
Stockman was happy to talk about his fellow Texan and tea-party favorite, saying, “He’s a good friend of mine and a great guy. In fact, I believe we go to the same church in Houston.”
The congressman said he doesn’t really know if Cruz is eligible for the presidency, but Cruz has been upfront and Obama was not.
Stockman noted that it took a long time for Obama to produce a document, and even now, questions linger.
“One of the things I always questioned was the documentation of the president, whether that was fraudulent,” he explained. “But I don’t question Cruz. Ted came right out and said, ‘Here’s the documentation.’”
WND columnist and former adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher Lord Monckton also has said the issue with Obama is not where he was born, but whether his documentation is authentic.
Monckton has claimed the birth certificate Obama finally produced after years of prodding is “plainly a forgery” and could be dismantled with software.
“It appears in layers on the screen in such a way you can remove quite separately each of the individual dates,” Monckton has said.
“You use Adobe Illustrator and each of the individual dates is in its own separate layer. This thing has been fabricated,” he explained.
Stockman mentioned another element that separates the case of Cruz and that of the president: the persistence of reports that Obama was listed as a foreign student in school and the fact he has yet to release records that would disprove that.
Another issue for Cruz is whether he has dual citizenship. The Dallas Morning News says, although Cruz was born an American citizen, under Canadian law he also became a citizen of that country at birth.
The paper claims Cruz will retain dual citizenship unless he renounces his Canadian citizenship.
Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier told the Dallas paper, “Sen. Cruz became a U.S. citizen at birth, and he never had to go through a naturalization process after birth to become a U.S. citizen.”
She added, “To our knowledge, he never had Canadian citizenship, so there is nothing to renounce.”
The Dallas Morning News headline reads, “Dual citizenship may pose problem if Ted Cruz seeks presidency,” but the article does not cite anyone claiming dual citizenship would prevent someone from becoming president.
Stockman said, not being a lawyer, he doesn’t know if being a dual citizen would disqualify Cruz for the presidency.
The main question for Cruz now may be whether he is a “natural born citizen,” as the Constitution requires of the president.
Scholars and legal experts disagree on whether that means one who is born in this country.
Some experts insist “natural born citizen” must mean born in the U.S. because the qualifications for other jobs listed in the Constitution just mention being a “citizen” without the “natural born” qualification.
One commentator has already noted that the argument being forwarded by Cruz is the same as what Obama used: that being a citizen is the same as a natural born citizen.
However, there are many more nuances.
Experts on the Constitution remain divided now, just as they were a couple years ago when Obama was insisting he was a natural born citizen.
A WND book, “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” analyzed the controversy over Obama, and an analyst told WND it’s essentially the same thing issue with Cruz.
“The arguments and the experts are the same today as they were in 2011, except now the left would like to declare Cruz ineligible (because he had only one U.S. citizen parent at the time of his birth and was born in Canada) and then the left wanted to argue Obama was a natural born citizen (because he had one U.S. citizen parent at his birth and was born in Hawaii).”
The analyst continued, “That’s why the birth certificate became so important. If Obama had only one U.S. citizen parent at birth, he might have been qualified to be a U.S. citizen at birth, but if he was born in Kenya, then he was not eligible.”
Many analysts read Vattel’s book, “Law of Nations,” for its lesson on the topic, a book George Washington also consulted.
Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, considered a leftist, and Theodore Olsen, often considered right-leaning, co-authored a legal brief for John McCain arguing he was a natural born citizen because both his parents were U.S. citizens at the time of his birth and the founders never meant to exclude from eligibility someone who was born outside the U.S., just because the parents were serving the nation in the U.S. military at the time, the analyst said.
They explained McCain ultimately provided proof (including the name of the attending physician) he was born on the Naval Base in the Panama Canal Zone, adding additional support to the claim he was born on “U.S. soil.”
Eventually, Congress passed a joint resolution for McCain, co-sponsored by Obama, concluding McCain was a natural born citizen eligible to run for president.
Another element in the confusing scenario is an interpretation of Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution that considers “natural born citizen” to mean being a U.S. citizen at birth, regardless of location. Thus, Obama would be eligible because his mother was a U.S. citizen when he was born. This is the position that the Congressional Research Service took in two separate opinions written in 2010 and 2011.
The argument over Obama did not end here because his mother, Ann Dunham, was underage at the time Obama was born and the naturalization statutes at the time may have disqualified her from transferring citizenship to her son because it was not clear she was in the U.S. for seven years (after attaining the age of 21) before Obama was born.
The analyst said there are constitutional experts on every side of the question – including law professors who have published in respected law journals arguing Article 1, Section 2 is archaic and should be ignored – or even worse, that it is xenophobic or racist and should be ignored because we have become a “multicultural, multiracial” nation.
But there are similarities: “Again, it depends on which definition you use, but Cruz being a dual citizen at birth would disqualify him under Vattel. Obama was also a citizen of the British Empire at birth because his father was a citizen of Kenya when Obama was born and Kenyan law at the time conveyed Kenyan and British Commonwealth citizenship. The left argues Kenyan law also demanded a person born to a Kenyan national had to affirm their Kenyan citizenship upon reaching majority age – something Obama did not do. So Obama was a dual citizen – or even a triple citizen, arguably a citizen of Kenya, the British Commonwealth, and the country … when he was born – but was only a USA citizen when he ran for presidency.”
WND reported previously how the controversy over Cruz was building steam.
A News 4 report from Jacksonville noted that U.S. Rep. Ted Yoho has promised to back Texas Rep. Steve Stockman’s proposed bill to investigate the president’s birth certificate.
“So I called Steve up when I got back. He says, ‘Yeah, we’re doing it. You want to get on that?’” I says, ‘yeah,’” said Yoho.
...........................................
View the complete article at:
http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/obama-eli...ublic-on-cruz/
Congressman: Case more about documents than birthplace
WND
Garth Kant
8/19/2013
Excerpt:
WASHINGTON – To hear Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, describe it, the difference between President Obama and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas – on the question of their eligibility for the highest office in the land – may be a case of comparing apples and oranges.
The congressman said with Cruz, it is a legal question of whether he is eligible to serve as president – whereas the issue with Obama is not really about where he was born, but whether his documentation is authentic.
Cruz released a copy of his birth certificate Sunday to the Dallas Morning News, as some have begun questioning the possible presidential contender’s eligibility, just as many have questioned Obama’s eligibility since 2008 when the argument was first raised by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
The Cruz birth certificate shows he was born in Canada in 1970 to an American mother, which gave him American citizenship.
Obama, on the other hand, is the subject of Stockman’s proposed legislation calling for a congressional investigation of both the president’s constitutional eligibility and the authenticity of the birth certificate he released to show he was born in Hawaii.
In an exclusive interview with WND, Stockman said, in the case of Obama, it is more of a question about the validity of the documentation as well as his forthrightness, whereas with Cruz, it is more of a matter for legal and constitutional scholars to decide. - (bold emphasis added in the preceding two paragraphs)
Stockman was happy to talk about his fellow Texan and tea-party favorite, saying, “He’s a good friend of mine and a great guy. In fact, I believe we go to the same church in Houston.”
The congressman said he doesn’t really know if Cruz is eligible for the presidency, but Cruz has been upfront and Obama was not.
Stockman noted that it took a long time for Obama to produce a document, and even now, questions linger.
“One of the things I always questioned was the documentation of the president, whether that was fraudulent,” he explained. “But I don’t question Cruz. Ted came right out and said, ‘Here’s the documentation.’”
WND columnist and former adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher Lord Monckton also has said the issue with Obama is not where he was born, but whether his documentation is authentic.
Monckton has claimed the birth certificate Obama finally produced after years of prodding is “plainly a forgery” and could be dismantled with software.
“It appears in layers on the screen in such a way you can remove quite separately each of the individual dates,” Monckton has said.
“You use Adobe Illustrator and each of the individual dates is in its own separate layer. This thing has been fabricated,” he explained.
Stockman mentioned another element that separates the case of Cruz and that of the president: the persistence of reports that Obama was listed as a foreign student in school and the fact he has yet to release records that would disprove that.
Another issue for Cruz is whether he has dual citizenship. The Dallas Morning News says, although Cruz was born an American citizen, under Canadian law he also became a citizen of that country at birth.
The paper claims Cruz will retain dual citizenship unless he renounces his Canadian citizenship.
Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier told the Dallas paper, “Sen. Cruz became a U.S. citizen at birth, and he never had to go through a naturalization process after birth to become a U.S. citizen.”
She added, “To our knowledge, he never had Canadian citizenship, so there is nothing to renounce.”
The Dallas Morning News headline reads, “Dual citizenship may pose problem if Ted Cruz seeks presidency,” but the article does not cite anyone claiming dual citizenship would prevent someone from becoming president.
Stockman said, not being a lawyer, he doesn’t know if being a dual citizen would disqualify Cruz for the presidency.
The main question for Cruz now may be whether he is a “natural born citizen,” as the Constitution requires of the president.
Scholars and legal experts disagree on whether that means one who is born in this country.
Some experts insist “natural born citizen” must mean born in the U.S. because the qualifications for other jobs listed in the Constitution just mention being a “citizen” without the “natural born” qualification.
One commentator has already noted that the argument being forwarded by Cruz is the same as what Obama used: that being a citizen is the same as a natural born citizen.
However, there are many more nuances.
Experts on the Constitution remain divided now, just as they were a couple years ago when Obama was insisting he was a natural born citizen.
A WND book, “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” analyzed the controversy over Obama, and an analyst told WND it’s essentially the same thing issue with Cruz.
“The arguments and the experts are the same today as they were in 2011, except now the left would like to declare Cruz ineligible (because he had only one U.S. citizen parent at the time of his birth and was born in Canada) and then the left wanted to argue Obama was a natural born citizen (because he had one U.S. citizen parent at his birth and was born in Hawaii).”
The analyst continued, “That’s why the birth certificate became so important. If Obama had only one U.S. citizen parent at birth, he might have been qualified to be a U.S. citizen at birth, but if he was born in Kenya, then he was not eligible.”
Many analysts read Vattel’s book, “Law of Nations,” for its lesson on the topic, a book George Washington also consulted.
Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, considered a leftist, and Theodore Olsen, often considered right-leaning, co-authored a legal brief for John McCain arguing he was a natural born citizen because both his parents were U.S. citizens at the time of his birth and the founders never meant to exclude from eligibility someone who was born outside the U.S., just because the parents were serving the nation in the U.S. military at the time, the analyst said.
They explained McCain ultimately provided proof (including the name of the attending physician) he was born on the Naval Base in the Panama Canal Zone, adding additional support to the claim he was born on “U.S. soil.”
Eventually, Congress passed a joint resolution for McCain, co-sponsored by Obama, concluding McCain was a natural born citizen eligible to run for president.
Another element in the confusing scenario is an interpretation of Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution that considers “natural born citizen” to mean being a U.S. citizen at birth, regardless of location. Thus, Obama would be eligible because his mother was a U.S. citizen when he was born. This is the position that the Congressional Research Service took in two separate opinions written in 2010 and 2011.
The argument over Obama did not end here because his mother, Ann Dunham, was underage at the time Obama was born and the naturalization statutes at the time may have disqualified her from transferring citizenship to her son because it was not clear she was in the U.S. for seven years (after attaining the age of 21) before Obama was born.
The analyst said there are constitutional experts on every side of the question – including law professors who have published in respected law journals arguing Article 1, Section 2 is archaic and should be ignored – or even worse, that it is xenophobic or racist and should be ignored because we have become a “multicultural, multiracial” nation.
But there are similarities: “Again, it depends on which definition you use, but Cruz being a dual citizen at birth would disqualify him under Vattel. Obama was also a citizen of the British Empire at birth because his father was a citizen of Kenya when Obama was born and Kenyan law at the time conveyed Kenyan and British Commonwealth citizenship. The left argues Kenyan law also demanded a person born to a Kenyan national had to affirm their Kenyan citizenship upon reaching majority age – something Obama did not do. So Obama was a dual citizen – or even a triple citizen, arguably a citizen of Kenya, the British Commonwealth, and the country … when he was born – but was only a USA citizen when he ran for presidency.”
WND reported previously how the controversy over Cruz was building steam.
A News 4 report from Jacksonville noted that U.S. Rep. Ted Yoho has promised to back Texas Rep. Steve Stockman’s proposed bill to investigate the president’s birth certificate.
“So I called Steve up when I got back. He says, ‘Yeah, we’re doing it. You want to get on that?’” I says, ‘yeah,’” said Yoho.
...........................................
View the complete article at:
http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/obama-eli...ublic-on-cruz/