CRUZ, OBAMA AND ELIGIBILITY
By Nelson Hultberg
December 12, 2015
In my recent article, Trump's VP Choice and Eligibility, I maintained that Ted Cruz is eligible for the presidency of the U.S. because he is a natural born citizen. The case for his eligibility is based upon two laws, the Naturalization Act of 1795 and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.
These two laws of the land show that Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal are ineligible to be President because they were born of alien parents and thus not "natural born." Thus anti-eligibility advocates are correct about these two candidates (and as we will see below probably about Obama also). But they have gone one bridge too far when they try to say that Ted Cruz is not eligible. The official law of the land states clearly that he is.
Some have countered this contention with the fact that Ted Cruz is ineligible for both the Senate and the presidency because he failed to authenticate his birth from an American mother in Canada in 1970 with a CRBA Form (Consular Report of Birth Abroad).
Probably Cruz’s parents did fail to file such a form. But this does not negate the fact that he is “natural born.” CRBA Forms are filed to register one’s birth up until one is 18 years old. After that age, a person no longer uses a CRBA Form. He must file for recognition of his “natural born” citizenship via a Certificate of Citizenship Form to document acquisition pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1452. (last paragraph).
Cruz is clearly natural born under the Acts of 1795 and 1952. If his parents did not file the required paperwork necessary to register his birth 1970, it means that Cruz must file himself. This is a technicality that merely needs to be addressed. It is a lengthy process with several forms (such as an N-600 Form) and birth documentation from the applicant and the applicant’s parent (Cruz’s mother), all of which must be submitted to the Attorney General’s Office. But if the applicant’s parent is a natural born citizen (which Cruz’s mother is), then the process is tedious, but automatic.
Also it’s important to understand that when one is born from a natural born American citizen, whether here or abroad, such a person is automatically a natural born citizen from birth. [Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, Professors of Law at Georgetown University, On the Meaning of Natural Born Citizen].
Thus the absence of registration papers at the time of birth does not negate the fact of such a person’s birth and his or her status as a “natural born citizen.” This status stems from the fact of birth, not it’s recording.
Thus unless there is a "statute of limitations" on the filing of Certificate of Citizenship Forms (which there isn’t), the eligibility case against Cruz is not going anywhere and should be abandoned by conservatives.
Birther Movement Is Both Right and Wrong
What anti-eligibility advocates don't grasp is that unless the Supreme Court is willing to overturn the Immigration Acts of 1795 and 1952 in response to a challenge of them, the issue of "natural born citizen" has officially been defined by Congress, which they have a constitutional right to do (Article I, section 8, clause 4). The fact that no challenge of these two laws and overturning by the Supreme Court has taken place leaves us with the congressional definition of "natural born citizen."
This is a very important part of how jurisprudence progresses in America. Legislation is passed by Congress, which then becomes the law of the land. If this law is challenged and deemed "unconstitutional," the Supreme Court strikes it down. But if this does not take place, it is deemed "constitutional."
Thus until the 1795 and 1952 immigration laws are challenged in the courts and deemed unconstitutional, they form the backbone of what an "American citizen" is, whether natural born or naturalized. The chances of the Supreme Court overturning these two laws are nil.
Moreover, contrary to the beliefs of anti-eligibility advocates, the term "citizen" is not inferior or secondary to "natural born citizen." It is actually the superior (or inclusive) term. In other words, there are two types of citizens, natural born and naturalized. Thus when the term “citizen” is used interchangeably with “natural born citizen” in the writing of any law it means the same thing unless clarified as meaning “naturalized.” The term “citizen” is not a third category that is inferior to the “natural born” category. It is simply another term that means natural born or naturalized depending upon the context.
The two immigration laws of 1795 and 1952 are why the Obama eligibility challenges never went anywhere. Obama was born from Ann Dunham, a natural born citizen, which means he was natural born. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 establishes this. And it doesn't make any difference where he was born, inside or outside the borders of the U.S. Section 3 of the Naturalization Act of 1795 establishes this. But there is a very important question that we have to ask:
Why then did Obama produce such an obviously forged birth certificate that was immediately torn apart by hundreds of document experts as a fabrication? Something was being covered up. But what?
Here are three of those analyses:
Sheriff Arpaio of Arizona's investigation - 5 min. video
Obama Birth Certificate Faked - 7 min. video
Jerome Corsi Article on Zbest analysis of the forgery
To answer why Obama and his advisors produced such an obviously forged birth certificate, perhaps they were trying to cover up the fact that Ann Dunham and Obama's father were not legally married, which is a requirement under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Barack's father was previously married and never divorced. Thus his marriage to Dunham was not legal, just a temporary contrivance to allow him to stay in the U.S. and finish his education.
Why precisely they released the forged birth certificate we do not know, but obviously they were trying to cover up something. Was it something that made Obama NOT a "natural born citizen" and thus not eligible? We can't be sure.
Birthers, however, have been fighting the battle from the wrong legal perspective. They have attacked Obama on the premise that there is a residency requirement for being natural born and also on the premise that Vattel was 100% accepted on the two-parent requirement throughout our history, thus establishing "original intent."
Unfortunately the courts in America, as the longevity of the 1795 and 1952 laws attest to, have never held to either of these premises. If they had, the birther case would have received a lot more respect and not been dismissed so quickly as “without merit.”
The reason the case was always dismissed “without merit” was because birthers were arguing on the premise that all they needed to do is show Obama was not born in the U.S. and not born of two natural born citizen parents, when this is clearly not the case as the 1795 and 1952 Acts state. He can be born anywhere (Act of 1795), and he needs only one natural born parent (Act of 1952). Since these two laws are accepted as the definition of what a “natural born citizen” is, any case against Obama on the residency and Vattel premises is doomed before it ever gets launched.
In other words, you cannot attack Obama legally on his eligibility until you first attack the Naturalization Act of 1795 and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. They must be challenged as to their “constitutionality” according to Vattel, and the Supreme Court must agree and strike them down. This is not going to happen.
So if Obama is going to be challenged on eligibility, it must be done through some other legal strategy, which will be very difficult. Any eligibility issue in regards to Obama is probably too murky to make fruitful. We know that he is covering something up, but what that something is, we can’t be sure of.
How to Proceed Against Obama
But there is one thing we can be sure of. Hundreds of computer and photo shop experts have testified that the released Obama birth certificate in 2011 was highly altered with numbers and names changed and with layers added, thus, making it not a single document released intact by the Hawaii Department of Records, but a "constructed document," i.e., a fabricated document by rather amateurish computer people (probably some low level operatives in the administration). Hundreds of experts have testified to this fact of fabrication. Yet not one expert has come forward to testify to the released document's authenticity. The Obama administration has relied on the gullibility of the American public and the compliance of the media to allow their forgery to pass.
Thus Obama can be clearly attacked on the grounds of forgery. This is a felony punishable by prison. Obama and his henchmen are definitely guilty of committing a major crime. Merely view the above two videos and read Jerome Corsi's article for verification.
Unfortunately now that Obama's term is winding down, he's not going to be impeached on the eligibility issue or even the crime of forgery. His term will expire before any such cases could be brought in front of Congress and won. But it would be fitting justice if Obama was eventually taken to criminal court on the crime of forgery. In this way the truth about the man would be known, and his place in history would be rightfully discredited.
Thus if conservative activists would like to tackle the criminal case of forgery, there are valid grounds for proceeding. Perhaps some group with the legal chops and money to back them up will take on the challenge. Perhaps a Trump Justice Department will be willing to prosecute such a crime. That would be true "patriot justice."
In the absence of such a challenge and prosecution, we will just have to live with the fact that the 44th President of the United States was a most despicable human being and a Marxist arch enemy of everything our country has stood for over two centuries. Hopefully his term in office will stand well into the future as an example of the horrible damage a Marxist ideologue can do to our country by becoming President. God help us if Hillary follows in his wake.
© 2015 Nelson Hultberg - All Rights Reserved
Nelson Hultberg is a freelance writer in Dallas, Texas and the Director of Americans for a Free Republic. A graduate of Beloit College in Wisconsin, his articles have appeared over the past 25 years in such publications as The American Conservative, Insight, Liberty, The Freeman, The Dallas Morning News, and the San Antonio Express-News, as well as on numerous Internet sites such as Capitol Hill Outsider, The Intellectual Conservative, Popular Liberty, and The Daily Bell. He is the author of The Golden Mean: Libertarian Politics, Conservative Values.