While the field of candidates for the next presidential election is still taking shape, at least one potential candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, was born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother.15× 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. Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a “natural born Citizen” even under the Naturalization Act of 1790.
Obama is not mentioned.
Please exercise your free speech in the comments section below. There are no stipulations of political correctness on this blog. Speak your mind, give us your thoughts, both objective and subjective. Share your ideas, hunches, inklings or your expertise. Please provide recommendation and corrections if you spot errors in fact within the blog report. Lastly, remember that posting a comment is much like casting a vote, so please do so.
WOW! This is a VERY IMPORTANT DOCUMENT because of the STATUS of its two authors and the prestigious venue WHERE it was published! Thanks for posting!
Excerpts:
IMO, the conclusion of the article is totally WRONG. I strongly believe that the NBC Constitutional requirement, as envisioned by the founding father’s, requires that BOTH parents be at least ordinary American Citizens at the time of birth and that the child be born on American Soil.
Nevertheless — I believe the PTB have now spoken quietly but officially regarding the NBC question!
If true, this is a tragic and very sad ending to an important Constitutional requirement. However, this action may be the only realistic solution to the SERIOUS POLITICAL PROBLEM our elected representatives unwisely allowed to develop back in 2008.
The 1961 Birth of BHO-II in Mombasa, Kenya, to listed parents BHO-I and Ann Dunham as shown on the authentic ‘Lucas Daniel Smith, Obama CPGH BC’, can now be ‘accepted’ since it shows him ELIGIBLE for the office of POTUS. The monumental ‘OBAMA ELIGIBILITY PROBLEM’ that Congress has been agonizing about for the last 6+ years has been solved on March 11, 2015 with the stroke of a pen in the Harvard Law Review! LOL
This development does not address any of the Obama-related fraudulent activities such as his forged LFBC and Selective Service documents but at least it attempts to put his ‘POTUS eligibility’ issue to rest.
NOW — Wherefore art thou Team Arpaio?
Just as there was no meaningful doubt that President Obama is a natural-born citizen, there are no “Obama-related fraudulent activities.”
But open your wallet and give deeply to Arpaio and Zullo!
Neal Katyal – Wikipedia, excerpt:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Katyal
Paul Clement – Wikipedia, excerpt:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Clement
[FreeRepublic.com]
Legal experts: Cruz’s Canadian birth won’t keep him out of the Oval Office
Posted on 3/12/2015, 2:32:49 PM by SoConPubbie
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3267221/posts
True!
However, I believe the featured article was at least 75% inspired by the ‘Obama POTUS Eligibility Problem’ with the remainder inspired largely by the potential ‘Cruz POTUS Eligibility Problem’.
The distinguished authors of the article were obviously chosen to present a BIPARTISAN opinion on the eligibility issue. Katyal is the unofficial Democratic Party representative and Clement is the unofficial Republican Party representative.
WHY was a strongly Democrat-affiliated author like Katyal ALLOWED by the Democratic Power Structure to contribute to an important article obviously intended to show Cruz, a born-abroad Republican with only one U.S. Citizen parent, eligible to campaign for the presidency?
Also, note that the Democrat-affiliated Katyal is listed as the LEAD AUTHOR on the article. If STATUS and ARTICLE CONTRIBUTION were really being considered approximately equal for the two authors, CLEMENT would normally be listed first according to alphabetical order.
It strains the limits of credibility that a major publication of the generally LEFT-LEANING HARVARD LAW SCHOOL would post in the Spring of 2015, an article extremely favorable to Cruz, a conservative republican that may be running for office in 2016. Fairness? LOL – Not likely!
Read ‘Cruz’ in the article but then immediately THINK about OBAMA having exactly the same potential eligibility problem! Focus, focus, focus!
@ Bruce:
Yes, I agree with you. I was thinking the same.
Attorney Responds To Harvard Law Review Publication On Article II Natural Born Citizen
Birther Report
3/14/2015
Excerpt:
A Response to Neil Katyal and Paul Clement on the Meaning of a Natural Born Citizen
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
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 http://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 http://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, http://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.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 13, 2015
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
Copyright © 2015
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/03/attorney-responds-to-harvard-law-review.html
Didn’t Mario Apuzzo lose in court every single time he argued against President Obama’s eligibility?
bob wrote:
Nope. The American people lost.
“….the people of the United States deserved to know where you were born, where you’re a citizen from, and what’s going on, why you hiding your background?” “It’s actually a disgrace to all the voters, all the citizens of our country…”
~ Attorney Phil Berg
“You know, I think what’s important if you’re running for president is that the American people know who you are, what you’ve done and that you’re an open book….”
~ Obama
“When you’re running for president, everything should be public – including your full medical records. I believe in a right to privacy. But when you’re running for president, which is such an important job, the need of the public to know supersedes it.”
~ Senator Charles Schumer
@ Rambo Ike: Thank you Ike, wonderful reply!!
The American people won because a few sore losers peddling nonsense weren’t allowed to overrule the results of a valid election.
Why do birthers hate America?
bob wrote:
In your small world, being is a sliver of the whole, it’s obvious you’ve been a long time open & swallower of the Fool-Aid provided by your Obot Overlords.
July 2014 Poll Report:
Six years after the first lawsuits were filed alleging Barack Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be president, a new poll indicates nearly one-quarter of American adults don’t even believe he’s a U.S. citizen, let alone a “natural-born citizen,” and another 17 percent are unsure.
Rasmussen Reports found 41 percent of Republicans believe Obama is not an American citizen, a belief shared by 21 percent of those who are unaffiliated and 11 percent of Democrats.
Just over 20 percent of Republicans and unaffiliated adults also are not sure, but only 7 percent of those in the president’s party share that doubt.
More than 1 in 10 DemoRATs don’t believe Obama is an American citizen. (Wow!)
Another Poll Report after the release of the Substitute Birth Document in April 2011:
Even after Barack Obama’s release of an official long-form birth certificate online, a Gallup poll showed that fewer than half of Americans are fully convinced that Barack Obama was actually born in the United States.
Do you believe like some of your homeboys there’s a vast cracker conspiracy going on to get the Darky presently squatting in our White House?
What a percentage of people claim to believe doesn’t mean it is the truth. Some Americans believe Elvis is alive on the moon and mining it for green cheese; doesn’t mean that’s accurate.
But thanks for confirming that birthers are just sore losers peddling nonsense in an effort to throw out election results that they don’t like.
@ bob:
Bob, you’re in luck. I’m the One you’ve been waiting for – I’ve come so you might learn.
Re: “What a percentage of people claim to believe doesn’t mean it is the truth.”
You’ve stolen that line from me, but atleast you’re catching on. That’s exactly what I’ve been saying for years to all you Obots: why believe in hearsay when the original records that have been kept hidden are available.
You need to study those 2 polls when put together. One was taken before the 2012 general election, and other after. It’s a strong condemnation of how far America has strayed from the sovereignty being with the American people. and an indicator of a government during the Reign of Obama moving towards an Oligarchy (the rule/control by a few).
Even within Obama’s own party it shows 18% either don’t believe he is a citizen or have doubts.
Checkmate !!!
Rambo Ike wrote:
I don’t know how they do it in your country, but, in the United States of America, birth certificates are valid to proof place (and date) of birth. What you call “hearsay” is accepted in any court in the United States as sufficient evidence. That you don’t understand how birth certificates work is entirely your problem.
You need to study reality: What people tell pollsters what they believe can be very different from what is actually real.
Epic fail !
Ted Cruz has judged, likely based substantially on the favorable 3/11/2015 post by Neal Katyal & Paul Clement in the “Harvard Law Review”, that he has been approved by the PTB as Constitutionally ELIGIBLE to serve as POTUS. He will be formally announcing his candidacy today, March 23, 2015.
I consider this GOOD NEWS for Lucas Daniel Smith and for the eventual widespread acceptance of the authentic ‘LDS, Obama Kenyan Birth Certificate’.
Tragically, this announcement by Senator Cruz today is simultaneously BAD NEWS for the previously venerable but increasingly irrelevant U.S. Constitution. Like Obama, Cruz was born abroad to a U.S. Citizen mother but whose father was not a U.S. Citizen at the time of the baby’s birth. IMO, and in the opinion of many experts who I highly respect, Cruz is NOT a NBC and therefore ineligible to serve as POTUS.
However, the PTB have declared by fiat that, as of 3/11/2015 , the DREADED INELIGIBLE-OBAMA CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS virtually everyone in the U.S. Political Establishment and MSM have been fearing and consequently ignoring since he was elected in 2008, DOES NOT ACTUALLY EXIST.
Consequently, there likely will no longer be widespread fear that previously signed legislation, important personnel appointments made or past military operations conducted by an ineligible POTUS would be subject to complex and expensive legal challenges and, in some cases, cancellation.
I believe the invisible, immense, ferocious, unpredictable OBAMA ELIGIBILITY ELEPHANT that has been stomping around the room for the last 6+ years will now magically start to become visible but much smaller and far less fearsome, and will eventually disappear completely!
CONGRESS, if they so choose, can now concentrate on exposing KENYAN-BORN OBAMA THE IMPOSTER AND FRAUD before his term ends in 2016 since they no longer have to fear being accused themselves of treason for allowing an ineligible individual to serve as POTUS. Will they take the necessary steps to start a thorough investigation and then follow thorough on the results of that investigation? I just don’t know the answer to that question.
I hope we will soon be receiving the promised comprehensive report from Team Arpaio regarding the fraudulent activities related to Obama!
Current view of the incredible, shrinking ‘OBAMA ELIGIBILITY ELEPHANT’. Get a quick look before it totally vanishes!
Image Credit: http://www.redbubble.com/people/davidodd/works/628066-baby-elephant-running
The only people who think Cruz isn’t eligible are the same birthers — with their perfect track record of failure — who didn’t think President Obama was eligible.
Now that major parts of the WEALTHY and POWERFUL U.S. Political Establishment and MSM appear to be (falsely, tragically and importantly) accepting Canadian-Born Senator Ted Cruz as being a NBC and POTUS eligible —
— Perhaps it’s time for us to accept HARD, COLD REALITY as it now presents itself and consequently state, for purposes of consistency, that Kenyan-Born OBAMA, who has essentially the same birth particulars regarding parentage as Cruz, is equally (OMG – $%@#&) POTUS ELIGIBLE.
After his first election in 2008, Obama was allowed to successfully run for a SECOND TERM in 2012. During this entire time period, spanning 6+ years, essentially NOBODY in a position of authority or having major national influence, with the exception of billionaire businessman, Donald Trump, has challenged his eligibility.
Team Arpaio has done much in an official capacity to expose the fraudulent activities related to Obama’s Birth Certificate and Selective Service Registration. However, Sheriff Arpaio has WISELY CHOSEN NOT TO CHALLENGE OBAMA’S ELIGIBILTY.
I believe the authentic ‘Lucas Daniel Smith, Obama Kenyan Birth Certificate’ remains a CRITICALLY IMPORTANT AMERICAN HISTORICAL DOCUMENT, but NO LONGER because it indicates that Obama may be POTUS INELIGIBLE. It is important because it clearly demonstrates that Obama is a LIAR regarding his birth in Hawaii. More importantly it largely explains WHY a FORGED Hawaiian BC was presented on April 27, 2011 to the American People.
Kenyan-Born Obama is a LIAR, a FRAUD and an IMPOSTER — and the ‘LDS, Obama Kenyan BC’ proves it on one single, easy to understand sheet of paper!
Now I call that – ONE VERY IMPORTANT HISTORICAL DOCUMENT!
Larry Bland still as descriptive as the family name: Rambo still as wrong as it was in ’08. LLDS still a lying shit-bird, and Bruce still as snowed as ever.
Don’t go changing.
Thanks for the laughs.
@ Bruce:
I call it crazy. When did you go off the deep end, Bruce?
@ BobJ: I see you recovered from the last beating you took here. Are you back for more of the same or are you just drive by posting?
The only liar, fraud, and imposter here is Lucas Daniel Smith, peddling his obviously fake birth certificate that he claims is from Kenya, a country that he can’t prove to have ever visited.
@ Larry Bland:
Wow,
I don’t respond for 6 months, and you are there in less than 20 minutes.
Thanks for the love Mr. Yo… er Bland.
Maybe an urban dictionary with the meaning of beating would do you well.
All you LLDS birther fucksticks are amazing. Don’t go changing.