{"id":2120,"date":"2014-11-07T12:08:50","date_gmt":"2014-11-07T18:08:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.orderofephors.com\/?p=2120"},"modified":"2014-11-07T12:08:50","modified_gmt":"2014-11-07T18:08:50","slug":"no-ted-cruz-is-not-eligible","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.orderofephors.com\/?p=2120","title":{"rendered":"No, Ted Cruz is Not Eligible"},"content":{"rendered":"

On October 31, 2014, MinuteManNews.com published an article by Greg Conterio, titled, \u201cYes, Ted Cruz is Eligible to Serve as President,\u201d <\/em> Over the past seven years, since the day Barack Obama crawled out of the political cesspools of South Chicago, I have written numerous articles on the question of his eligibility to serve as president\u2026 the longest of which is a comprehensive 13-page analysis of the term \u201cnatural born Citizen\u201d titled, \u201cThe Obama Eligibility Question<\/em> .\u201d<\/p>\n

Now, as we enter the 2016 campaign season, with Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA), Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), mentioned as potential presidential candidates, a great many Americans remain confused about the definition of the term \u201cnatural born Citizen.\u201d Although each of these men are eligible to serve as governors, as U.S. Senators, as members of the U.S. House of Representatives, or even justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, none are eligible to serve as president or vice president because they are not \u201cnatural born Citizens,\u201d as required by Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.<\/p>\n

Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father; Jindal was born in the U.S. to a father and mother, both of whom were citizens of India; Rubio was born in the U.S to parents, both of whom were citizens of Cuba; and Santorum was born in the U.S. to an American mother and an Italian father. Under provisions of the 14th<\/sup> Amendment, all are \u201ccitizens at birth,\u201d but none are \u201cnatural born\u201d citizens because of their non-citizen parentage.<\/p>\n

Aware that Senator Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban father, Conterio relies on language contained in 8 USC \u00a71401 to support his contention that Cruz is a \u201cnatural born\u201d citizen. That statutory language defines a \u201ccitizen at birth\u201d as \u201ca<\/em> person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is\u2026 not a citizen of the United States.\u201d<\/em> At no point does the statute mention the term \u201cnatural born Citizen,\u201d nor does it attempt to show that the terms \u201cnatural born Citizen\u201d and \u201ccitizen at birth\u201d are synonymous.\u00a0 To the contrary, when the Founders inserted the words \u201cnatural born Citizen\u201d in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, as a principal qualification for those who wished to serve as president of the United States, it was their intention that all those born with any taint of foreign allegiance<\/em> should be barred from the presidency and the vice presidency.\u00a0 Hence, the term \u201cnatural born Citizen.\u201d<\/p>\n

Under the 14th<\/sup> Amendment, all those born in the United States to American citizen parents, as well as those born to foreign nationals or parents of mixed nationality, are \u201ccitizens at birth.\u201d\u00a0 In other words, all \u201cnatural born\u201d citizens are \u201ccitizens at birth,\u201d but not all \u201ccitizens at birth\u201d are \u201cnatural born.\u201d\u00a0 However, Conterio contends that the terms \u201cnatural born Citizen\u201d and \u201cCitizen at birth\u201d are synonymous, just as the terms \u201cdog\u201d and \u201cdomestic canine\u201d are synonymous.\u00a0 That simply is not true.\u00a0 Those terms are no more synonymous than the terms \u201capple\u201d and \u201corange.\u201d\u00a0 But then, Conterio goes on to argue that, \u201cBased on U.S. law, the terms \u2018natural born Citizen\u2019 and \u2018Citizen at birth\u2019 are synonymous.\u201d\u00a0 However, in the next breath he reverses course, saying, \u201cThe Founders said \u2018Natural Born Citizen,\u2019 and the U.S. Code says \u2018Citizen at Birth,\u2019 which mean two completely different things.\u201d\u00a0 So which is it?\u00a0 Either the terms are \u201csynonymous,\u201d or are they \u201ctwo completely different things?\u201d\u00a0 They can\u2019t be both.<\/p>\n

What many who support the eligibility of Cruz, Jindal, Rubio, and Santorum refuse to consider is that there are only two jobs in all of America that require the incumbents to be \u201cnatural born\u201d citizens.\u00a0 Those jobs are president and vice president of the United States.\u00a0 Every other job in America, in government or in the private sector, can be filled by natural born citizens, by citizens at birth, by naturalized citizens, or, in some cases, by non-citizens with work visas.\u00a0 Those who agree that there are several categories of citizenship, but then argue that the Constitution puts no unique requirements on candidates for president and vice president, have an obligation to explain what they see as the difference between a \u201cnatural born\u201d citizen and any other kind of citizen.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em>In his analysis, Conterio relies heavily on an April 3, 2009 memorandum prepared by attorney Jack Maskell of the Congressional Research Service (CRS). The Maskell memorandum, which has been widely discredited, was produced for one reason and one reason alone: to give political cover to members of Congress who voted to certify Obama\u2019s Electoral College votes, knowing or strongly suspecting that he was not eligible for that office.<\/p>\n

The gist of Maskell\u2019s argument is that \u201c\u2026there is no federal law, regulation, rule, guideline, or requirement that a candidate for federal office produce his or her original birth certificate, or a certified copy of the record of live birth, to any official of the United States government\u2026 Furthermore, there is no specific federal agency or office that \u2018vets\u2019 candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility\u2026 \u201d <\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

No specific federal agency or office that \u201cvets\u201d candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility?\u00a0 Upon being sworn into office in early January, following each biennial General Election, all members of Congress are required to swear the following oath: \u201cI<\/em> do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.\u201d <\/em><\/p>\n

The congressional oath of office clearly requires all members of Congress to \u201csupport and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.\u201d That includes all those who would seek to gain access to the presidency without the necessary qualifications.<\/p>\n

The presidential selection process provides three vetting opportunities for president and vice president. Unfortunately, all three vetting opportunities failed miserably in 2008-09.\u00a0 The first occurred at the close of the Democratic national convention, in Denver, when the convention chairman, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, and the convention secretary, Alice Travis Germond, certified Barack Obama and Joe Biden to the 50 state election boards so that ballots could be printed.<\/p>\n

Because Hawaii has specific certification requirements under Hawaii Revised Statutes \u00a711-113, Pelosi and Germond certified to the State of Hawaii, as follows: \u201cTHIS IS TO CERTIFY that at\u00a0<\/em>\u00a0the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, C<\/em>olorado, on August 25 though <\/em>(sic) 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively, and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.\u201d <\/em><\/p>\n

The certifications sent to the other 49 states read, simply: “THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado, on August 25 though <\/em>(sic) 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States, respectively.\u201d <\/em>Affixed were the names and home addresses of Barack Obama and Joe Biden.\u00a0 The phrase, \u201c\u2026 and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution\u201d <\/em>was purposely omitted.<\/p>\n

Other than that, all of the documents were identical\u2026 even to the misspelling of the word \u201cthrough\u201d in the second line of the certifications. The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that Democrats knew when they nominated him that Obama was not a \u201cnatural born\u201d citizen and, therefore, ineligible to serve.\u00a0 Pelosi was aware that certifying falsely to Obama\u2019s eligibility was a criminal offense, so the question arises, what did she know, and when did she know it?<\/p>\n

The second vetting opportunity occurred on December 15, 2008, when the Democratic members of the Electoral College met to elect Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Even though most electors had been warned in advance that Obama did not meet the constitutional requirements to serve as president, all 365 Democratic electors, anxious to have another Democrat in the White House, violated their electoral oaths and cast their ballots for Obama.<\/p>\n

The third and final vetting opportunity occurred on January 8, 2009, when the Congress met in joint session to certify the votes of the Electoral College. Prior to that date, essentially every member of Congress had been advised that Obama\u2019s citizenship status was seriously in doubt.\u00a0 So, if a member of Congress suspected that the Electoral College had erred, it was his\/her solemn obligation to make those suspicions known and to object to the certification of the Electoral College vote. Yet, all 535 members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, purposely violated their oath of office by failing to demand an examination of Obama\u2019s qualifications.<\/p>\n

Why did they do so? Although we can\u2019t read the minds of 535 members of Congress, we can \u201cbet the farm\u201d that most failed to question Obama\u2019s eligibility because they were terrified at what would happen in the streets of America if the first black man ever elected by the Electoral College was turned away at the last moment on a constitutional \u201ctechnicality.\u201d\u00a0 Instead, the double-redundant \u201cfail safe\u201d system envisioned by the Founders suffered catastrophic failure.<\/p>\n

But now, with the potential candidacies of Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, or Rick Santorum, Republican principles will soon be put to the test. We will see whether Republicans, who, unlike Democrats, believe in the strict construction of the Constitution and the rule of law, will have sufficient reverence for the words of the Constitution to deny the nomination to a candidate who does not meet the necessary qualifications.\u00a0 Knowing Republicans as I do, I feel certain that they will distinguish themselves by refusing to nominate an unqualified candidate.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On October 31, 2014, MinuteManNews.com published an article by Greg Conterio, titled, \u201cYes, Ted Cruz is Eligible to Serve as President,\u201d Over the past seven years, since the day Barack Obama crawled out of the political cesspools of South Chicago, … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.orderofephors.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2120"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.orderofephors.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.orderofephors.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.orderofephors.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.orderofephors.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2120"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.orderofephors.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2120\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2121,"href":"https:\/\/www.orderofephors.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2120\/revisions\/2121"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.orderofephors.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2120"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.orderofephors.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2120"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.orderofephors.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2120"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}