Cruz nj eligibility hearing: Stunning ignorance or deception? part 1 of 2

Cruz nj eligibility hearing: Stunning ignorance or deception? part 1 of 2

While the charlatan media in America, cable, print and electronic, virtually ignores eligibility challenges to constitutionally ineligible, Ted Cruz, (unless it’s a ruling against the Constitution which they all seem to support) it is getting a lot of coverage on the Internet by independent media who believe the U.S. Constitution matters.

As I covered in my column last week, Ted Cruz Not On NJ Ballot – Will Hearing Today Finally Expose His Con Game?, an eligibility hearing was held April 11, 2016 in New Jersey. For the back story and details, please see my column here.

When the decision came down April 12, 2016 from an individual we all thought was an Administrative Law Judge named Masin, I damn near blew a gasket. I could not believe what I was reading. Masin is not new to this issue. I highly encourage you to read this interview:

Exclusive: Atty. Mario Apuzzo on New Jersey Ballot Challenge Hearing

“Administrative Law Judge Jeffrey Masin presided, who Apuzzo noted was the same judge who heard his ballot challenge to Barack Hussein Obama four years ago nearly to the day. “This is a different case from Obama’s case,” Apuzzo told us. “In the other case, the judge said that Obama did not have the burden of proof. They conceded that there was no evidence of who Obama was or where he was born. Then the judge came out with his famous line that ‘Mickey Mouse could run for president.’ It was just unbelievable.”

At this point in time there is ZERO evidence Lyin’ Ted Cruz is even a U.S. citizen. Since he renounced his FULL Canadian citizenship, I ask again: Just what country goes Cruz claim citizenship under?

Let me give you a few examples from Masin’s decision that burned me up to no end:

“The Constitution neither defines nor elaborates upon the phrase, “natural born Citizen.” The document contains no “Definitions” section. The meaning was never a subject of discussion at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.”

“The meaning was never a subject of discussion at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.” Really?

Is Being a Born Citizen of the United States Sufficient Citizenship Status to be President? The Founders and Framers Emphatically Decided It Was Not!

“During the process of developing a new U.S. Constitution Alexander Hamilton submitted a suggested draft for a Constitution on June 18, 1787. He also submitted to the framers a proposal for the qualification requirements in Article II as to the necessary Citizenship status for the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

“Alexander Hamilton’s suggested presidential eligibility clause:

“No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”

“Many of the founders and framers had a fear of foreign influence on the person who would in the future be President of the United States since this particular office was singularly and uniquely powerful under the proposed new Constitution. The President was also to be the Commander in Chief of the military. This fear of foreign influence on a future President and Commander in Chief was particularly strongly felt by John Jay, who later became the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. He felt so strongly about the issue of potential foreign influence that he took it upon himself to draft a letter to General George Washington, the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, recommending/hinting that the framers should strengthen the Citizenship requirements.

“John Jay was an avid reader and proponent of natural law and particularly Vattel’s codification of natural law and the Law of Nations. In his letter to Washington he said that the Citizenship requirement for the office of the commander of our armies should contain a “strong check” against foreign influence and he recommended to Washington that the command of the military be open only to a “natural born Citizen”. Thus Jay did not agree that simply being a “born Citizen” was sufficient enough protection from foreign influence in the singular most powerful office in the new form of government. He wanted another adjective added to the eligibility clause, i.e., ‘natural’. And that word natural goes to the Citizenship status of one’s parents via natural law.

“The below is the relevant proposed change language from Jay’s letter which he proposed to strengthen the citizenship requirements in Article II and to require more than just being a “born Citizen” of the United States to serve as a future Commander in Chief and President…..

“Hamilton’s suggested presidential citizenship eligibility requirement was that a Citizen simply had to be ‘born a Citizen’ of the USA, i.e., a Citizen by Birth. But that citizenship status was rejected by the framers as insufficient. Instead of allowing any person “born a citizen” to be President and Commander of the military, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement recommended by John Jay, i.e., requiring the Citizen to be a “natural born Citizen”, to block any chance of the person with foreign allegiances or claims on their allegiance at birth from becoming President and Commander of the Military. No person having any foreign influence or claim of allegiance on them at birth could serve as a future President. The person must be a “natural born citizen” with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to the United States at birth.”

And, pay attention, Masin: Ted Cruz: Neither a Natural Born Citizen Nor “TrusTed”

Petitioner, a law professor, Victor Williams, correctly stated “It is simply a physical impossibility for him to be both a natural-born Canadian and a natural-born American.”

In his BS decision, Masin relied on the 1898 Supreme Court case Wong Kim Ark using the Fourteenth Amendment. Either Masin can’t read English or he used deception by design because he flat out doesn’t have a clue about that case.

Leo Donofrio, as regular readers of my columns know, filed the first eligibility challenge in December 2008 against the criminal impostor in the White House. Leo covered this 14th Amendment issue:

Scroll down until you see THE FRAMERS OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT in big blue letters:

“Despite popular belief, the 14th Amendment does not convey the status of “natural born Citizen” in its text. It just conveys the status of “Citizen”. And it’s very clear that in the pre-amendment Constitution, the Framers made a distinction between a “Citizen” and a “natural born Citizen”. The requirement to be a Senator or Representative is “Citizen”, but the requirement to be President is “natural born Citizen”.

“From the 14th Amendment:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. But even as to this conveyance of citizenship, those who were responsible for drafting the 14th Amendment made it clear that – to them – the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant subject only to the jurisdiction thereof. Dr. John Fonte, Senior Fellow of The Hudson Institute had this to say about the issue at a Congressional hearing on dual citizenship from September 29, 2005:

“The authors in the legislative history, the authors of that language, Senator Lyman Trumbull said, ”When we talk about ’subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,’ it means complete jurisdiction, not owing allegiance to anybody else.” Senator Jacob Howard said that it’s ”a full and complete jurisdiction.”

“This illustrates that Congress recently discussed the issue, and they can’t claim they were unaware. But we don’t have to take Dr. Fonte’s word for it. The following discussion by the various 14th Amendment Framers took place on the Senate floor. I took it from P.A. Madison’s research at http://www.14thamendment.us:

“It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil. Again, we are fortunate enough to have on the record the highest authority tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee… and the one who inserted the phrase:

“[T]he provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ’subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

“Then Madison quotes Sen. Howard, another Framer, concurring with Trumbull:

“Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull’s construction:” (Read rest at link above)

Constitutional attorney, Mario Apuzzo, was at the hearing and gave oral arguments also covered what Masin doesn’t seem to understand: Neither the 14th Amendment Ratified in 1868 nor the Wong Kim Ark decision in 1898 makes Any Person a “natural born Citizen”. Those acts and laws create “Citizens of the U.S.” but NOT “natural born Citizens of the U.S.”

Masin further showed his ignorance:

“Masin relied heavily on the 1790 Naturalization Act in which Congress stated natural born citizens may be born outside the United States, while acknowledging the law was repealed and replaced by a 1795 law that omitted the phrase “natural-born.”

“Masin wrote: The 1790 Act provided that at birth, a child of a citizen of the United States, even if born outside the limits of the United States, was a “natural-born” citizen of the United States. No process was necessary for them to obtain this citizenship. No barrier stood in their way. Just as a child born within the limits of the United States, these children were “natural-born” citizens.”

For a full, comprehensive and accurate historical analysis on the 190 Naturalization Act, please read here but let me give you just a small quote:

“Cruz and his supporters proclaim that the Framers would have accepted Cruz as a true natural born citizen because of how the First Congress treated persons such as him in the Naturalization Act of 1790.[12] First, Congress does not have the constitutional power to make anyone a natural born citizen. In matters of citizenship, the Constitution at Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 gives to Congress only the power [t]o establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization . . . throughout the United States.” This naturalization power does not include the power to make anyone a natural born citizen, who does not need any naturalization Act of Congress or any other law to be a citizen. Congress was not given any powers to bestow citizenship upon anyone through any process other than naturalization. Hence, if Congress made those foreign-born children citizens of the United States, it did so only through its naturalization powers. For part two click below.

© 2016 – NewsWithViews.com and Devvy – All Rights Reserved

print
Share this article

Click Here For Mass Emailing
Devvy Kidd

Author Email: [email protected]

Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies sold. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country. She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy isn't left, right or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party. Devvy is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists. Devvy's regularly posted new columns are on her site at: www.devvy.com. You can also sign up for her free email alerts. E-mail: [email protected]


Author Email: [email protected]