Announcement

**bsteadman** · 03-09-2013, 09:31 PM

Free Republic is running a thread titled, 'Fox News Declares Ted Cruz Ineligible To Be POTUS Due To Birth In Canada [American Mother]', which was started 3/9/2013 by 'Cold Case Posse Supporter'

The thread references a Birther Report video published 3/9/2013 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg_Sn...layer_embedded

View the complete Free Republic thread at:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../2995161/posts

Now we are finally getting somewhere. Just like Obama is ineligible technically because his fathers British Nationality 'governed' his birth status in 1961, Ted Cruz is ineligible too. Fox News has confirmed it and rightly so. Sean Hannity made a huge blunder the other day and declared Ted Cruz a natural born citizen because he was born to a American mother in Canada. He was so wrong. Cruz is a 14th Amendment U.S. 'statutory' (not natural born) citizen which is something completely different than a Article 2 Section 1 Constitutional natural born Citizen which is explicitly designed only for the presidency by the framers.

**bsteadman** · 03-12-2013, 05:05 PM

The following is an excerpt from COMMENT #1031 by 'Spaulding' in the thread:

... Minor v. Happersett is all about natural born citizenship, because that was the only class of citizen defined in the Constitution. The case is clearly written, and clearly reasoned, and unequivocal.

The 14th Amendment nowhere mentions the term ‘natural born citizen’, and thus can have had no effect upon it. The Supreme Court doesn’t allow decisions to infer changes in other decisions. Reinterpretation must be explicit, and the author of the 14th Amendment, John Bingham, in his two addresses to the House, while explaining his amendment, explicitly tells us who are natural born citizens; “I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen….” Exactly the interpretation cited by John Marshall, and by Morrison Waite, and by John Jay, and by Charles Evans Hughes, all chief justices.

In Wong Kim Ark Justice Gray cites Minor v. Happersett and quotes the passage in its entirety. Though he wanders through British Common law, he returns to find that Wong Kim, born to domiciled aliens in San Francisco, is a citizen, but not a natural born citizen. Read the end of the decision. The argument is a mess, and that may have been Justice Gray’s intention. It leads in irrelevant directions but returns to the only decision possible, because it rests on the 14th Amendment, which never mentions natural born citizenship.

The following is COMMENT #1171 by 'butterdezillion' in the thread:

Right now Obama’s HI BC has NO probative/legal value. It is not prima facie evidence. If it were prima facia evidence, it would be presumed to be accurate unless there was evidence to refute the claims (IOW, the burden of proof would be on those who say Obama was NOT born in Hawaii). But because the record is not legally valid, the burden of proof falls on OBAMA to prove that those are his real birth facts, not on somebody who would prove otherwise.

That is why Onaka’s letter of verification to Ken Bennett is so critical. By refusing to verify the birth facts claimed on the record they have, he disclosed that the record is not legally valid. He CAN’T legally presume that the birth really happened that way. That shifts the burden of proof. It is not we “birthers” who have to prove anything right now. Legally, it is Obama who has to prove his birth facts. And until he does, he HAS NO legally-determined birth facts - unless he’s got a valid BC from somewhere besides Hawaii.

The voters have no way of knowing where the guy was born. And Hawaii statute says that somebody like Obama (with a non-valid BC) can only even have their birth facts legally determined when the non-valid BC is presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative official or body. IOW, somebody who can compel the production of all the relevant records.

You’re saying that the voters should be able to do what HI law says only a judicial or administrative official or body can do, within a legal proceeding.

I’m saying HI law should be obeyed, as should the Constitution (which clearly says that if the voters elect somebody who fails to qualify, that elected person cannot “act as President”). The way you’re saying it is supposed to be thus contradicts both the Constitution and HI statute.

The following is COMMENT #1216 by 'butterdezillion' in the thread:

Most people that you reference don’t even know that TPM Muckraker left out half of Bennett’s request. They haven’t looked at the law nor the complete request. One of the Republican Presidential primary candidates said nobody will look into it because it goes WAY deeper than anybody wants to delve. IOW, they know there is treachery that goes far deeper than just Obama’s eligibility - and Obama’s eligibility problem is just the tip of a deadly iceberg.

It wasn’t until Onaka’s verification to Ken Bennett that we had an official document from Hawaii which contradicted what the HDOH Directors had previously said - which is why the legal presumption was that the HDOH Directors were acting in good faith. But as I’ve said repeatedly - and to this day nobody in opposition to me has mentioned, addressed, or even acknowledged this fact that I’ve proven - the HDOH deliberately falsified their 1960-64 birth index so that it includes individual names that are from non-valid BC’s. They inserted names that should not have been on that list. That is proof that the HDOH is deliberately deceiving the public, and falsifying official records to do so.

None of that was known before, and even now that the state SOS’s and AG’s have all been informed, the responses all claim that they don’t have to care about it one bit.

My analysis about Onaka’s verification - that he effectively confirmed that Obama’s BC is non-valid - has been affirmed (through words to me or by actions) by 6 hostile attorneys, including the Mississippi Democratic Executive Committee’s lawyers, who were very careful NOT to ask for any birth facts to be verified or for the validity of the record itself to be confirmed, even though they said those were the 2 critical issues in the lawsuit in question.

The counsel for my own SOS first (immediately) noted that the copy of Klayman’s letter that he received was not specifically addressed to him. Then he wrongly claimed that Bennett had not asked for date of birth, gender, etc to be verified. Finally he settled on Nebraska not having to care what HI said to AZ, and said that since NE law doesn’t require the nominating papers to be LAWFUL (non-fraudulent and non-perjurious) Obama’s name would go on the ballot even if Bob Bauer was sitting in jail convicted of fraud for the fraudulent nominating affidavit.

IOW, the people you refer to are either ignorant or wilfully ignoring the substance of the issue because they say it is not their concern.

And that is pathetic.

Announcement

Audio: Fox News Declares Senator Ted Cruz Ineligible To President Due To Birth In Can

Audio: Fox News Declares Senator Ted Cruz Ineligible To President Due To Birth In Can

Comment

Comment