WHY TED CRUZ and MARCO RUBIO ARE NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY ELIGIBLE TO HOLD THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT DESPITE WHAT THE HARVARD LAW REVIEW CLAIMS, AND WHAT THE POSSIBLE FUTURE OF THE UNITED STATES COULD BE IF EITHER OF THESE MEN ARE ELECTED:
By: Most Rev. +Gregori
There are FIVE TERMS of CITIZENSHIP used in the Constitution of the United States. The following are the five defined terms along with some legal References to them:
#1. “CITIZEN of the United States” mentioned in various places in the Constitution.
WHAT MAKES ONE A “CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES?
A.) U.S. Citizenship status of the parents at the time of the child's birth. This means born to at least one U.S. Citizen parent (citizenship given by law) or;
B.) Born in the United States & Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof. Contrary to popular belief, this does NOT include children born in the U.S. to parent(s) in the country illegally. Lastly, Naturalized Citizen, which is citizenship given by law via Federal Statutes.
Legal References: 14th Amendment, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution; U.S. Supreme Court Case, U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898); U.S. Federal Statutes such as Title 8, Section 1401.
#2. “CITIZEN of the United States at the time of Adoption of this Constitution” also known as the 'Grandfather Clause' or 'Original Citizen' clause.
WHAT MAKES ONE A “CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION?
A.) Citizen of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted because prior to the adoption of the Constitution, there was no United States and all those living here were considered British subjects according to the British Crown.
Legal References: U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.
#3. “BORN CITIZEN” of the United States.
WHAT MAKES ONE A “BORN CITIZEN” OF THE UNITED STATES?
A.) Born in the United States and subject to the Jurisdiction thereof.
Legal References: U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution; U.S. Supreme Court Case, U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898); U.S. Federal Statutes such as Title 8, Section 1401. NOTE: Under the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court Ruling, “subject to the Jurisdiction thereof, meant both parents had to be legally in the U.S. when the child was born in the U.S. This amendment was NEVER intended to grant citizenship status to children (known as anchor babies) born here to parent(s) in the U.S. illegally.
#4. “NATURALIZED CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES”.
WHAT MAKES ONE A “NATURALIZED CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES?
A.) One NOT born in the United States. Citizenship rights obtained by processes governed by Federal Statutes which include the individual swearing or affirming an Oath of Allegiance to the USA and renouncing any and all foreign allegiances such as to any Prince, Potentate, government or leader.
Legal References: U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 1 U.S. Federal Statutes.
#5. “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”.
WHAT MAKES ONE A “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN?
A.) BOTH PARENTS MUST BE citizens, of any of the above types, of the United States at the time the child is born. The parents could have obtained citizenship by birth or naturalization. Natural born citizens are the children of parents (plural) who are U.S. Citizens at the time of the child's birth. It does not matter if the parents were naturalized or born citizens, just as long as BOTH the father and mother were U.S. citizens when their child was born. A “natural born citizen” is born with Unity of Citizenship and sole Allegiance at birth to only the U.S.
Legal References: U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. “Law of Nations”, Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212. U.S. Supreme Court cases: Venus (1814), Minor v. Happersett (1874), Perkins v. Elg. 307 U.S. 325(1939). Also comments by Congressman and Judge John Bingham, a framer of the 14th Amendment.
Since Ted Cruz was never subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at birth, then he was NEVER a Citizen who was Naturally Born exclusively as our citizen or in any way a United States Natural Born Citizen, which again is defined as or must at least encompass the definition of not owing allegiance to anybody else and completely under the jurisdiction of the United States of America only, at birth.
At Birth Ted Cruz is Canadian first, a Cuban national through is father secondly, and in a distant third, by operation of law (INA 1952) an U.S. citizen (through his mother) whose internationally recognized natural born citizenship rests in Cuba through his father, NOT the United States. His father did not become a "naturalized citizen" of the U.S. until 2005, years after Cruz's birth.
Marco Rubio was born in Florida, which makes him a "citizen" of the U.S. However, his parents were in the United States as immigrants from Cuba and they were NOT U.S. citizens at the time of Marco's birth. They did not become U.S. citizens until Marco was four years old, therefore Rubio does not meet the requirement of being a "natural born citizen".
This leads to the question; "Should the citizens of the United States have a Government and Governance that conforms to the Constitution of the United States, which in Article 6 of the Constitution, says it is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, or not?
Barack Hussein Obama is in the same boat as Cruz and Rubio. Even IF Obama was born in Hawaii, he would still only be a citizen, NOT a "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN", since his father was NEVER a citizen of the U.S. This means that Obama is NOT the legal President of the United States by Operation of the Constitution of the United States, currently has no de facto President by operation of the Constitution of the United States, and if Cruz or Rubio were elected, the United States would operate under the same lawlessness and non-binding compliance to the U.S. Constitution as Obama operates under. Worse than that, as a second major party to have a constitutionally ineligible candidate elected to be POTUS under the Constitution designate (not being a U.S. Natural Born Citizen), an elected Cruz (or Rubio, or Jindal, by examples also) could be the excuse to DISSOLVE the Republic and that Constitution (with its Bill of Rights) we now have!
Saul Alinsky, the mentor of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, wrote in Rules for Radicals that any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future.
The Ford & Rockefeller Foundations came up with the Constitution for the New States of America, some fifty-years ago, and ever since, those on the left have been pushing for an Article V Convention of States so that they can impose a new Constitution. So far, conservatives have managed to defeated these periodic pushes for a convention. This has led the left to change their tactics: They are now marketing it to appeal to conservatives by trying to convince conservatives that a convention is THE ONLY WAY to rein in the federal government. They are also telling conservatives that elections and nullification – THE REMEDIES OUR FRAMERS ACTUALLY ADVISED – don’t work. This how the left is beginning to make Americans feel that they have nothing to lose by a convention. Alinsky tactics are being used on the American People.
Several leftist Constitutions – in addition to the New States Constitution - have already been prepared and waiting for an Article V convention, because a new Constitution will be needed to transform the United States of America into a member State of the "North American Union".
Can you guess who is on the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Task Force to set up the merging of Canada, the U.S.,and Mexico? None other than Heidi Cruz, the wife of the constitutionally ineligible candidate for President of the United States, Ted Cruz. Is this a coincidence, me thinks not. This Task Force is for the purpose of setting up a Parliament over the 3 countries.
The political establishments of both the DNC and the GOP WANT the North American Union, where Canada, the United States, and Mexico surrender their national sovereignty to a Parliament over the three countries. To help accomplish this, they want to get the American citizens used to having a President who is NOT a natural born citizen. This why the Democrats, aided and abetted by the Republicans got away with putting Barack Hussein Obama, an ineligible candidate, into the office of President, and it is also the reason why the GOP is doing everything possible to get either Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio elected president even though neither of them is constitutionally eligible as they are NOT "natural born citizens".
The political establishment powers that be feel that Ted Cruz would be the perfect choice to be the first president of the North American Union (NAU), because he was born in Canada to a Hispanic father (Cuban) and an American mother.
If this is allowed to proceed and the NAU comes into fruition, you can be 100% sure that none of the Bill of Rights will be included in the new constitution, and once gone, they will be gone for good. ARE YOU WILLING TO TAKE THAT CHANCE?