Is 'Natural Born Citizenship' & the Constitution a 'Dead Letter?'Submitted by Lawmanjed on Thu, 09/12/2013 - 14:01
When I recently heard the name of Ted Cruz and his possible presidential candidacy, particularly on a site like DailyPaul, where intelligent discussion should prevail, I got sick to my stomach! To even consider in passing, without condemning and dismissing a potential Cruz run for president as unconstitutional, is very disturbing, considering the "natural born citizen" (NBC) eligibility requirement for President in ARTCLE II, SECTION 1 of the US CONSTITUTION, with which we should all be familiar by now. The same eligibility standard is applied to the Vice President by the 12th Amendment. In case you don't know by now, NBC requires birth on US soil to US citizen parents. And yes, the US Supreme Court defined NBC as such in its 1875 decision entitled MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, which is still good law binding on all US courts. But you would never know it from the misinformation paraded by the MSM or ignored by most other sources. We need to study and educate ourselves regarding the Constitution.
How many on this site actually believe that merely being born a citizen is the same as NBC? If our founders thought so, why did they chose a legal term of art, NBC, instead of "born a citizen" language (as proposed by Alexander Hamilton)? Were our founders stupid or illiterate? If NBC meant "born a citizen", why would they have used the former term when the latter or similar language would have sufficed? Were our founders not concerned about insuring the undivided loyalty of future Presidents? Anyone "born a citizen" of the US could be born with one or even two non-US citizens, eg. American mother and British father, born in the US to legal or illegal alien(s), or born and raised on foreign soil, and still be eligible for president. Having just fought and won their independence from the British in a long, bloody war, and worried about future invasion or subversion by foreign forces, the chance that our founders intended NBC to mean "born a citizen" = ZERO!
Correct me if I am wrong, but Cruz not only was not born on US soil (born in Canada) but also had a non-US citizen (Cuban) father at birth, and therefore was born with dual or possible triple (Canadian, American & Cuban) citizenship. If being born on US soil is optional for NBC, what the h*ll was all the fuss about Obama being born in Hawaii or not? Is Cruz trying to out-do Obama in his ineligibility? So what is Cruz doing? Is he ignorant of the NBC requirements for President set forth in the US Constitution? The Constitution he swore a solemn oath to support and defend! Is he that power hungry to be President? Is the power, high honor and prestige of US Senator not enough for him? Must he seek the presidency? Are he and his backers testing the waters to see what kind of push-back he gets from the political and legal establishments, the media, or the people? Is he that willing to subordinate the good of the nation and his oath of office to support and defend the Constitution to his ambition? Are we? Ted Cruz is clearly not a NBC and therefore not eligible to be President or Vice President. But in ignoring his oath, he may be much worse! And what does that say about us?
In failing to condemn such a run, we are in effect enabling the continued violation and degradation of the US Constitution and our respect for the rule of law. How many of you on this site are aware that most of the Republican candidates or proposed candidates for President and Vice President in the last two election cycles were NOT eligible for the office, or had doubtful qualifications? The list, supported by ample evidence online, includes McCain (born in Panama, not then yet US territory), Rubio (Cuban parents became naturalized US citizens when Marco was age 5), Santorum (not clear if his Italian father became US citizen before Rick's birth), Jindal (Indian parents became US citizens when he was aged 5 & 10, respectively) and Romney (not clear if Mexican-born father George had US citizenship when Mitt was born). What's up? Neither major party is able to find any Presidential or Vice Presidential candidates that are clearly eligible to serve under the Constitution? Coincidence? You gotta be kidding! There are no coincidents at this level. Nobody runs for high office in this country, especially for US Senator or President, without backing from powerful sources. This stuff is planned well in advance and candidates are groomed and developed to serve many purposes. Think Obama! Think this is a side issue of little or no importance and I am crazy to focus on it? Think again!
ARTICLE IV, SECTION 4 of the US CONSTITUTION provides that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government". ARTICLE VI, CLAUSE 2 provides that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land". ARTICLE VI, CLAUSE 3 provides that "The Senators and Representatives ... the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judical Officers, both in the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution ..." Apparently our founders felt that adherence to the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, was so essential to our self-government and liberty that public officials must be bound by oath to support it.
It is said that "you can't make a 'silk purse' out of a 'sow's ear'." Even election to the office of President or Vice President cannot make a "President elect" or "Vice President elect" eligible to the office if he or she is not qualified or eligible to begin with. This is made explicitly clear in the 12th AMENDMENT, last sentence: "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States". Furthermore, the 20th AMENDMENT, Section 3. provides: "...if the President elect shall have failed to quality, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case where neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualifed."
Note that these amendments absolutely require eligibility and qualification to these offices, rather than mere election. So even if Congress, the Courts and the people fail to act, or everyone in the country agreed he should be President, the unqualified or ineligible "President elect", even if democratically "elected" by the people, is still ineligible and in office illegally, and such imposter or usurper, the "sow's ear", though dressed up to look like a "silk purse", is still a "sow's ear"; and yes, "the Emperor has no clothes". Essentially, the Presidency has been taken over by an illegal coup, and we are living under a tyrant. How does that sit with you, my fellow DailyPaulers?
We can continue to vote in elections periodically and delude ourselves into thinking that we are still "the land of the free and the home of the brave", but that is clearly a lie because we are neither. Arguably, we are no longer sovereign citizens of a constitutional republic, but have been transformed into mere subjects of a "democracy" run by the "people" and its ruling elites, including our "elected" but constitutionally unqualified, ineligible "Emperor". So when, if ever, are we going to stand up for the Constitution? If not now, when? Unless we take action to right this perversion of our republic, our Constitution has become a mere "dead letter", a document we honor in the breach, an historic relic that we pay lip service to, and the rule of law it espouses has degenerated into the rule of men. History, and our children and grandchildren, will judge us later.