Kenyan-born Obama, WILL ultimately and tragically be confirmed POTUS ELIGIBLE

[bsteadman]

CRUZ AND RUBIO ARE ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT

NewWithView.com
Dr. Ed Berry, PhD, Physics
12/17/2015

Excerpt:

The question of whether Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are eligible to be president of the United States has been reviewed by several authors. The question comes down to the definition of a natural born citizen.

Cruz was born in Canada while his mother was a U.S. citizen and his father had been a resident of the United States. Rubio and Jindal were both born in the United States to parents who were not U.S. citizens.

As a physicist, I leave lawyering to the lawyers. I stick to reading and qualifying legal opinions. The logic of physics is very similar to the logic of law.

Below are my summaries of the three key legal opinions on this subject. Apuzzo argues for ineligible. Katyal, Clement, and Maskell rebut Apuzzo's opinion and argue for eligible.

I conclude Katyal, Clement, and Maskell easily win the debate, meaning both Cruz and Rubio are eligible to be president.
.............................................

http://www.newswithviews.com/Berry/ed102.htm

[bsteadman]

Mask Off: U.S. Congressman Trey Gowdy Endorses Ineligible Candidate Marco Rubio For President

Birther Report
12/30/2015

Excerpt:

U.S. Congressman Trey Gowdy endorses constitutionally ineligible presidential candidate Marco Rubio.

Headline via Freedom Outpost:

- Freedom Outpost -

RELATED:

- Freedom Outpost -

View the complete Birther Report presentation at:

http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/12...rey-gowdy.html

[bsteadman]

The Original Meaning of 'Natural Born'

Michael D. Ramsey
University of San Diego School of Law
January 7, 2016

Abstract:

Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution provides that no one but a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President of the United States. Modern conventional wisdom generally holds that the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes anyone made a U.S. citizen at birth by U.S. statutes or the Constitution. But that conventional wisdom is, on its face, open to doubt. If anyone born a U.S. citizen is eligible, the word “natural” in the eligibility clause is superfluous. Further, in general in eighteenth-century legal language, natural meant the opposite of “provided by statute” (hence “natural law” and “natural rights”). And plausible arguments can be made for a narrow meaning of “natural born” on the basis of either traditional English common law or eighteenth-century continental public law. To this point, modern scholarship has provided no comprehensive response to these objections.

Nonetheless, as matter of the Constitution's original meaning, the conventional wisdom is correct. This article defends a broad view of the original meaning of the eligibility clause on the basis of eighteenth-century English parliamentary practice. The key to understanding the eligibility clause is Congress’ power over naturalization, which in turn is best understood by examining parliament’s naturalization power. By the mid-eighteenth-century, Parliament had power to define by statute who would be recognized as a “natural born subject” – a power that, along with others, was called naturalization. In a succession of Acts, Parliament extended this designation (which originally only applied to those born in England) to various categories of people born outside the country. In adopting the phrase “natural born” from English law, the American framers likely understood that they were using a phrase without a fixed definition and subject to legislative alteration through the naturalization power. That conclusion in turn provides sound support for the modern view that Congress can create categories of “natural born” citizens by statute. - (bold and color emphasis added)

View the complete abstract and the link to the full publication at:

Ramsey, Michael D., The Original Meaning of 'Natural Born' (January 7, 2016). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2712485

[InspectorSmith]

I'll go ahead and read Ramsey's 36 page paper (The Original Meaning of 'Natural Born) and post some thoughts on it at the the blog.

[bsteadman]

The kind of judge I admire is a “living constitutionalist” - Laurence H. Tribe

Under Ted Cruz’s own logic, he’s ineligible for the White House

Boston Globe
Laurence H. Tribe
1/11/2016

Excerpt:

There’s more than meets the eye in the ongoing dustup over whether Ted Cruz is eligible to serve as president, which under the Constitution comes down to whether he’s a “natural born citizen” despite his 1970 Canadian birth. Senator Cruz contends his eligibility is “settled” by naturalization laws Congress enacted long ago. But those laws didn’t address, much less resolve, the matter of presidential eligibility, and no Supreme Court decision in the past two centuries has ever done so. In truth, the constitutional definition of a “natural born citizen” is completely unsettled, as the most careful scholarship on the question has concluded. Needless to say, Cruz would never take Donald Trump’s advice to ask a court whether the Cruz definition is correct, because that would in effect confess doubt where Cruz claims there is certainty.

People are entitled to their own opinions about what the definition ought to be. But the kind of judge Cruz says he admires and would appoint to the Supreme Court is an “originalist,” one who claims to be bound by the narrowly historical meaning of the Constitution’s terms at the time of their adoption. To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.

This narrow definition reflected 18th-century fears of a tyrannical takeover of our nation by someone loyal to a foreign power — fears that no longer make sense. But the same could be said of fears that a tyrannical federal army might overrun our state militias. Yet that doesn’t lead Cruz — or, more importantly, the conservative jurists he admires — to discard the Second Amendment’s “right to bear arms” as a historical relic, or to limit that right to arms-bearing by members of today’s “state militias,” the national guard.

On the other hand, the kind of judge I admire and Cruz abhors is a “living constitutionalist,” one who believes that the Constitution’s meaning evolves with the perceived needs of the time and longstanding practice. To that kind of judge, Cruz would be eligible to serve because it no longer makes sense to be bound by the narrow historical definition that would disqualify him. - (bold and color emphasis added in two paragraphs above)
.................................................. ..........

View the complete article, including image, at:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...GoK/story.html

[bsteadman]

Scholar: Ted Cruz Eligible, but Not Thru Mother

Breitbart / Big-Government
Joel B. Pollak
1/11/2016

Excerpt:

Fordham University law professor Thomas H. Lee told Breitbart News on Monday that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is “probably” eligible to run for president–but not because his mother was a U.S. citizen.

According to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, Lee argues, and existing British common law at the time of the Constitution, Cruz would need to have inherited U.S. citizenship from his father to qualify as “natural born” after being born abroad.

Lee published an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times on Sunday arguing that Cruz would be eligible under liberal theories of interpretation of the Constitution, but not under the originalist theory to which he [Cruz] himself subscribes.

That conclusion is at odds with what most originalists have argued, citing the definition of “natural born citizen” used by the First Congress. Lee says the more important source is the distinction in British common law between jus soli (the law of soil) and jus sanguinis (the law of blood). Citizenship was determined by the former–except in the case of men abroad on official business, such as advisers, soldiers, or ambassadors. They were thought to hand down their citizenship to their offspring. Women did not fill such roles, and so did not trasmit their citizenship.
..........................................

View the complete article, including image, at:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...t-thru-mother/

[bsteadman]

Shock Report: Maricopa County GOP Committee Votes Down "natural born Citizen" Requirement Resolution

Birther Report
1/21/2016

Excerpt:

Shhh. Don't tell the Maricopa County Republican Committee that the Article II "natural born Citizen" clause in the U.S. Constitution is a CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT that's never been repealed or amended. It is the law of the land!

Text of the voted-down Resolution:
. . . . . .

RESOLUTION ON THE RIGHTFUL (ORIGINAL NATURAL LAW) UNDERSTANDING OF THE MEANING OF U.S. CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 2, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5 "natural born Citizen"

WHEREAS, U.S. Declaration of Independence strongly guided by “Laws of Nature and Nature's God”;

WHEREAS, it is understood, in/of itself, Natural Law/Emerich de Vattel’s “Law of Nations” (1758, Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212): “natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens” strongly guided Founders/Framers, “natural born Citizen” means person born in U.S. to two U.S. Citizen parents;

WHEREAS, first SCOTUS Chief Justice John Jay, appointed by first POTUS/Commander-In-Chief George Washington, recommended “natural born Citizen" directly to Washington: “strong check to admission of Foreigners into administration of our national Government” -- ultimately passing unanimously at Constitutional Convention;

WHEREAS, seven related SCOTUS rulings (1814,1830,1857,1875,1898,1939,1971) confirm this understanding;

WHEREAS, U.S. State Department affirms this understanding never being interpreted differently/altered by any Court;

WHEREAS, the Constitution mandates strongest possible safeguard -- American, through-and-through -- serving as President/Commander-In-Chief, of, by, for "We The People";

WHEREAS, answer to question: ‘How foreign is too foreign?’ is ‘Anything foreign is too foreign';

WHEREAS, Washington’s Farewell Address: “If we remain one people… why forego the advantages?… why quit upon our own to stand upon foreign ground?… why interweave our destiny?… why entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of foreign ambition?… let there be no change by usurpation”;

WHEREAS, "We The People" rise up, restore the Constitution, take back/keep the Republic given us; therefore, be it

RESOLVED, Maricopa County Republican Committee;

HEREBY COMMITS to the original Natural Law understanding of “natural born Citizen” in MCRC’s official activities.
. . . . .

FULL REPORT:

- The Post & Email - http://www.thepostemail.com/2016/01/...en-resolution/

View the complete Birther Report presentation, including comments, at:

http://www.birtherreport.com/2016/01...ounty-gop.html

[bsteadman]

Is Ted Cruz a “Natural Born Citizen”?

Fortune
Roger Parloff
1/19/2016

Excerpts:

Just because Donald Trump’s raising the issue, don’t assume it’s frivolous.

Could Donald Trump be right? Could Ted Cruz be ineligible for the Presidency? What exactly is a “natural born citizen,” anyway?

In our highly mobile nation of immigrants, the last question is one we are confronting with growing frequency. The Constitution (article II, section 1, clause 5) says our President has to be one, and each election cycle we seem to be surprised anew at the knotty, anachronistic, inequitable repercussions of the restriction.

The scholars who are most deeply schooled in the question agree that the answer is anything but simple.

In modern times the “natural born citizen” issue has arisen with respect to John McCain in 2008 (born on a Navy air base in the Panama Canal Zone), Mitt Romney’s father, George, in 1968 (Mexico), and Barry Goldwater in 1964 (Arizona territory prior to statehood); hypothetically with respect to potential candidates like former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (Germany) and former Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm (Canada); and contingently vis-à-vis statesmen in the line of Presidential succession, like former secretaries of state Madeline Albright (Czechoslovakia) and Henry Kissinger (Germany). (Imagine a crisis in which President became incapacitated and, due to unsettled, Constitutional obscurities, we don’t even know who’s in charge.)

Cruz was born in Canada in December 1970 to a U.S. citizen mother and a Cuban-born, Canadian citizen father. He was himself a dual citizen until 2014, when he relinquished his Canadian citizenship.

Constitutional scholars have served up two main contenders for what “natural born citizen” might mean. First, it could refer to people who were actually born in this country, with only a very few exceptions that were established by the British common law (i.e., judge-made precedents) as of 1787 and 1788, when our Constitution was drafted and ratified.

Proponents of this view then disagree among themselves over whether the stingy British common law definition should also be widened to include certain eighteenth century Parliamentary statutes also in effect at the time.

Professor Mary Brigid McManamon, of Widener University Delaware Law School, may be the leading proponent of the first school of thought, see here and here, while professor Sarah Helene Duggin, of Catholic University, has reached some similar conclusions. McManamon cites writings suggesting that no less an authority than James Madison was also among those who understood the clause in this fashion.

Under these interpretations, Cruz seems to be excluded, for reasons we’ll discuss shortly.

Then there’s the more permissive alternative. “Natural born citizen” might simply refer to anyone who, thanks to whatever immigration laws happened to be in effect at the time of his or her birth, was automatically considered a U.S. citizen without having to go through the rigamarole of naturalization. If this is the correct interpretation, the Constitution actually provides no single, immutable, citizenship requirement applicable to all presidential hopefuls. Instead, it delegates to each Congress the power to define and redefine precisely which people it thinks should be encompassed by the phrase “natural born citizen.”

This is the interpretation that has been advocated by, among others, former solicitor generals Paul Clement and Ted Olson; former acting solicitor general Neal Katyal; University of Baltimore law professor Garrett Epps; Yale law’s Akhil Reed Amar and Jack Balkin; Harvard’s Cass Sunstein; a Congressional Research Service monograph produced in 2011; and—after wrenching internal debate and a deep scholastic dive—University of San Diego law professor Michael Ramsey.

Under this second approach, McCain, Romney, and Goldwater sail through, and Cruz sneaks in under the wire as well. It’s a close call in Cruz’s case because, oddly enough, his U.S. citizenship hinges on the nooks and crannies of his mother’s resume. According to professor Steven Lubet of Northwestern University , under the laws in effect at the time of Cruz’s birth, a baby born beyond our borders was eligible for automatic U.S. citizenship only so long as at least one of his or her parents had been not only a citizen, but had also been “physically present” in the U.S. for at least 10 years prior to the birth, including five after the age of 14. Cruz’s father, a noncitizen, fails the test, but his mother, born in Delaware and reportedly a graduate of Rice University, appears to meet it. (Lubet tweaks Cruz for once having sought to introduce an amendment to an immigration bill that would have required would-be voters to provide documentary proof of their citizenship. In Cruz’s own case, Lubet argues, that would have required a substantial dossier.)

One problem with this second, more permissive approach to defining “natural born citizen” is that, as professor Ramsay has acknowledged, it seems to render the word “natural” superfluous. If anyone is eligible to whom the law confers citizenship at birth, why didn’t the Framers of the Constitution just say “born citizens”?

Finally, there’s a camp that seems to want to use Cruz’s judicial philosophy against him. Harvard’s Laurence Tribe has suggested that while he personally favors the second approach, more conservative jurists, who advance orthodox “originalist” approaches to constitutional interpretation, ought to find themselves stuck with the first. Since Cruz has pledged to appoint just such originalists to the Supreme Court, Tribe is, in essence, attempting to shove Cruz’s jurisprudence up his—well, strike that. Tribe is accentuating what he sees as an irony in Cruz’s position. Similar sentiments have been expressed by such academicians as Fordham’s Thomas Lee, and Cornell’s Michael Dorf. (Nevertheless, professors Amar and Ramsey have each offered originalist analyses that conclude that Cruz is eligible.)
.................................................. ..

So which side of the debate does this law support? Some say it actually favors the restrictive theory: If, as a constitutional matter, babies born to citizens outside the borders were already considered “natural born citizens,” why would this statute even have been necessary? The more permissive camp, on the other hand, says the law shows that, at the time, everyone understood that Congress was empowered to define what “natural born citizenship” meant, and the first Congress was, therefore, doing just that. But those who favor the more restrictive reading protest that the law did no such thing. It simply specified who had to go through the naturalization process, they contend, and had nothing to do with eligibility to become President, which was subject to an independent, immutable Constitutional standard.

What’s the upshot? First, many more authorities end up favoring the second, more permissive view, so perhaps there is a consensus. - (bold and color emphasis added)

But nothing is truly “settled” until the Supreme Court has ruled on it. Which leads to the final question: Will it ever do so? Several lower courts have ruled that voters don’t have the requisite personal stake—or standing—to raise the issue. (A voter suit relating to Cruz’s candidacy was filed in federal court in Houston last week.)
.................................................. ...

View the complete article, including image, at:

http://fortune.com/2016/01/19/ted-cruz-natural-born/

[bsteadman]

Illinois Board of Elections declares Ted Cruz a ‘natural born citizen’

American Thinker
Thomas Lifson
2/3/2016

Ted Cruz, who has been an American citizen since birth – he was not naturalized – has been declared a “natural born citizen” by the Illinois Board of Elections, responding to a challenge. Cristian Farias of the Huffington Post reports:

On the same day he won the Republican Iowa caucus, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas got a favorable decision from the Illinois Board of Elections, which ruled that he met the citizenship criteria to appear on the state's primary ballot.

Two objectors, Lawrence Joyce and William Graham, had challenged Cruz's presidential bid with the board, contending that his name should not appear on the March 15 ballot because his candidacy did not comply with Article II of the Constitution.

Adopting the recommendations of a hearing officer who considered the matter last week, the board of elections on Monday rejected both objections, ruled Cruz eligible and ordered that his name be certified for the election.

"The Candidate is a natural born citizen by virtue of being born in Canada to his mother who was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth," the board said, reasoning that Cruz met the criteria because he "did not have to take any steps or go through a naturalization process at some point after birth." (snip)

Agenda minutes for the Illinois Board of Elections -- which include its determinations in the two challenges to Cruz's eligibility plus a separate one Graham filed against Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) -- can be found here. - http://www.elections.state.il.us/Dow...SOEBAgenda.pdf

It is not uncommon for U.S. Service personnel stationed overseas to marry locals and have children. Are those children, including those not born at a base hospital (not everyone stationed overseas has access to a base hospital), ineligible for the presidency and not “natural born citizens” simply because their fathers or mothers were serving our country?

View the complete article, including links, at:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...n_citizen.html

[bsteadman]

Racist: Huffington Post To News Media; Ask Cruz If He Believes Obama Is An Article II Natural Born Citizen

Birther Report
3/7/2016

Excerpt:

It would be nice if all the scoundrels in the media would use the actual term listed in Article II of the Constitution.

natural born Citizen

And enough of the race card! It is so 2008...

Excerpt via Paul Abrams Huffington Politics:

For some reason no reporter, no debate moderator, no one, has asked Ted Cruz (R/TP-TX) whether in his legal opinion President Barack Obama is a natural-born U.S. citizen, qualified to be President of the United States.

It is an important question. And, all the other Republican leaders and candidates should be asked that question as well.

Why? For Cruz, if he cannot form an opinion, or says he does not think so, Cruz's entire case for eligibility goes up in smoke. Cruz claims that being born in Canada to a mother who is a United States citizen qualifies him. President Obama's mother was a United States citizen. Even Trump has never disputed that. Her father fought in World War II. If Cruz believes place of birth is irrelevant, just the US citizenship of one of one's parents, then he must say that Obama is eligible to be President.

He must also then say that birtherism, and specifically Donald Trump's, was a fake, phony, useless exercise. He should then be asked why he never stood up to denounce it.

But, the importance of this question goes way beyond Ted Cruz's ambitions. Republican leaders have been silent on birtherism, providing legitimacy to the racism that infects their party, threatening to destroy it, or the United States, depending on the results of the November election. If Republicans believe Cruz is their remaining chance to stop Trump, they have to assert his legitimacy, and thus they must publicly acknowledge Obama's. [...] Huffington Politics. - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-a..._9399756.html?

@ Paul Abrams. Go pound sand!

View the complete Birther Report presentation, including comments, at:

http://www.birtherreport.com/2016/03...ews-media.html

[bsteadman]

Buck: Birther Promoter Joseph Farah Endorses Foreign Born Presidential Candidate; Declared Rubio Ineligible

Birther Report
3/8/2016

Excerpt:

Last night WND founder Joseph Farah endorsed Canadian-born Ted Cruz for POTUS.

WND headline:

- WND -

This is the same person that for years promoted Obama's ineligibility and his lack of a legitimate birth certificate.

One of WND's columnist (name withheld) had this to say about the endorsement, via email:

I am shocked, stunned, in a state of disbelief.

I can only wonder how Jerry Corsi must be feeling and what he must think of this...

shaking my head...

This solidifies my long held belief that WND's efforts in regards to the eligibility issue was about the almighty dollar.

FLASHBACK:

WND's Joseph Farah: Why Article II Presidential eligibility Matters; Obama Eligibility Questions Remain

Joe Farah on Fox News: Rubio Ineligible for Vice-Presidency; Not a ‘Natural-Born Citizen’

View the complete Birther Report presentation, including comments, at:

http://www.birtherreport.com/2016/03...eph-farah.html

[bsteadman]

Backlash: Birthers & Trump Supporters Pile On WND Over Obama & Cruz Ineligibility; Birther Report Cited

Birther Report
3/8/2016

Excerpts:

Backlash: Birthers And Trump Supporters Pile On WND Over Barack Obama And Canadian-Born Cruz Ineligibility

As reported here, WND founder Joseph Farah endorsed ineligible presidential candidate Canadian-born Ted Cruz.

Apparently, WND and Farah are feeling the heat. So much so they just published a lengthy response.

Here's the response in full:

Trump fans erupt over 1 bold endorsement
.................................................

He (Joseph Farah) explained: "I was inundated with more than 100 emails eviscerating me for my personal endorsement of Ted Cruz. On the other hand, I received about a half dozen atta-boys. Most of the protests claimed Cruz is constitutionally ineligible – even though, as the candidate has explained, his mother was an American citizen at the time of his birth.

"As I have explained before, ad nauseam, from my point of view, when the Congress and courts abdicated their responsibility with regard to the questions of Barack Obama's eligibility, a precedent was set. If Obama was not going to be held accountable to any standard during eight years as president, how could we hold others accountable?" he wrote. - (bold, underline and color emphasis added)
...........................................

View the complete Birther Report presentation, including comments, at:

http://www.birtherreport.com/2016/03...upporters.html

[bsteadman]

Must Read: Congressional Research Service Releases Another Disinfo Report On Article II Eligibility

Birther Report
4/7/2016

Excerpt:

Congressional Research Service put out another disinformation report on the Article II presidential eligibility clause.

Sharon Rondeau @ The Post & Email reports: - http://www.thepostemail.com/2016/04/...lity-part-iii/

The following is a continuation of an in-depth analysis by legal scholar Joseph DeMaio of the January 11, 2016 Congressional Research Service (CRS) memo as it addresses, or fails by omission to address, the meaning and intent of the term "natural born Citizen" found in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution relating to presidential eligibility. [...]

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) notes:

This masterful new article in the series written by Joseph DeMaio about the CRS’s multi-paper, multi-year deceptions on the presidential eligibility clause is a must read. He clearly and factually exposes and debunks Maskell’s latest deceptive techniques, significant omissions, and flawed historical and legal arguments in the CRS Report (CRSR) which Maskell prepared at the behest of the political party controlled establishment leadership of the Congress to help enable politically attractive but constitutionally ineligible candidates to run for President and CINC (or VP) and, hopefully to the posers, to get away with it. [...]

PART ONE:
- The Post & Email -

PART TWO:
- The Post & Email -

PART THREE:
- The Post & Email -

CRS DISINFO REPORT:
New CRS Memo re Qualifications for President and the Natural Born Citizenship Eligibility Requirement Congr... by protectourliberty

View the complete Birther Report presentation, including comments, at:

http://www.birtherreport.com/2016/04...-research.html

[bsteadman]

Full Ruling: New Jersey Judge Advisory Opinion Rules Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible To Be President

Birther Report
4/12/2016

Excerpt:

Excerpt via NJ Administrative Law Judge Jeff Masin:

As demonstrated above and in the thoughtful examinations of the scholars whose materials are mentioned herein, it must be acknowledged that the arguments against finding a child born outside the United States to a non-diplomat or non-military citizen of the United States are not facetious and the issue can never be entirely free of doubt, at least barring a definitive ruling of the United States Supreme Court. While absolute certainty as to this issue is only available to those who actually sat in Philadelphia and themselves thought on the issue, having weighed the arguments as they are presented by those trying to understand the Framers’ intent, I CONCLUDE that the more persuasive legal analysis is that such a child, born of a citizen-father, citizen-mother, or both, is indeed a “natural born Citizen” within the contemplation of the Constitution. As such I CONCLUDE that Senator Cruz meets the Article II, Section I qualifications and is eligible to be nominated for President. His name may therefore appear on the New Jersey Republican primary ballot. [...]

FULL RULING:

NJ Judge Advisory Opinion Rules Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible To Be President - 4/12/2016 by BirtherReport - https://www.scribd.com/doc/308269472...dent-4-12-2016

View the complete Birther Report presentation, including comments, at:

http://www.birtherreport.com/2016/04...-advisory.html

[bsteadman1]

Alert: State Department Scrubs Presidential Eligibility Section; No More Natural Born Citizen

Birther Report
3/16/2016

Excerpt:

U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Scrubs Presidential Eligibility Section
7 FAM 1131.6-2

Breaking report by Pixel Patriot
Published March 14, 2016

The U.S. Department of State scrubbed the Presidential Eligibility Section 7 FAM 1131.6-2 from the Foreign Affairs Manual as the highly contested Presidential primaries are heating up in which several candidates have been challenged based on ineligibility due to not being Natural Born Citizens; one of the 3 eligibility requirements in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

I discovered this by comparing previous versions of the State Department website between January 19th, 2016 and February 29th, 2016 using the Wayback Machine, a service of the Internet Archive.

State Department Foreign Affairs Manual 2016 Scrubs Presidential Eligibility by PixelPatriot

According to the State Department, the deletion of the Presidential Eligibility Section 7 FAM 1131.6-2 was made on February 24th and the following section moved up. However, from the archived web page on February 29th it can be seen that the Presidential Eligibility section had in fact been deleted but section 7 FAM 1131.6-3 Non-Citizens by "Naturalization" remained in its original place contrary to CON-636.

State Department Foreign Affairs Manual Change 2.24.2016 by PixelPatriot

Update 3/14/16 5:43 pm

After drafting my report this morning, I contacted Attorney Mario Apuzzo and asked if he knew if someone had already found or reported this deletion from the Foreign Affairs Manual and he said someone known as Mick did previously post a comment about this at his blog on Feb. 29th.

From Mario Apuzzo:

See Mick's comment and those that followed at Donald Trump Is Right to Retweet that Marco Rubio Is Not a Natural Born, at Citizen http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2016/02/do...weet-that.htm:

Mick said...

7 FAM 1131.6-2 "Eligibility for Presidency" was scrubbed from the internet on 2/24/16

They did not even change the numbering!! They even added, in 1131.6-3, the statute that naturalized Ted Cruz (8 US Code 1401(g)), as some sort of basis that 8 US Code "citizen at birth benificiaries are "Not Citizens by Naturalization."

Here is the screen shot WAYBACK from Feb 20, 2016

https://web.archive.org/web/20160119...07fam1130.html

Here is the current version

https://fam.state.gov/fam/07fam/07fam1130.html

Do you know how these entries are made Mr. Apuzzo?

I undestand that the INS is now the USCIS under Homeland Security. The question is why would the State Dept. want to help Ted Cruz?

Hmmm....

February 29, 2016 at 6:48 AM

~~~~~

Still do your report.
__________________________________________________ _______

So although we both found this independently, Mick does rightfully get the credit for finding it first.

The deletion of a section of the Foreign Affairs Manual on Presidential Eligibility is bad enough, but the State Department as Mario explains in his follow up to Mick, is replacing it with a misapplied definition of naturalization by statute leaving out the qualifier limiting it only to “this chapter.”

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

7 FAM 1131.6-3 Not Citizens by “Naturalization”
(CT:CON-474; 08-19-2013)

Section 101(a)(23) INA (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23)) provides that the term "naturalization" means "the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever." Persons who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents who meet the applicable statutory transmission requirements are not considered citizens by naturalization.

This statement is also not correct given the decisions of our U.S. Supreme Court. What the State Department should add is that the fact that someone is not considered to be naturalized pursuant to a statute does not mean that he or she is not naturalized under the Constitution.

February 29, 2016 at 8:03 AM

Mario expounds further in his most recent article how Ted Cruz is naturalized at birth by a naturalization Act of Congress without which Cruz would be an alien at birth, which precludes him from qualifying for the Office of the President of the United States which requires a Natural Born Citizen, not only a Citizen at birth.

Ted Cruz: Neither a Natural Born Citizen Nor “TrusTed”

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution is still operative...
...and the Law of the Land.

Defender of the Truth
© Pixel Patriot 2016
(All rights reserved.)

View the complete Birther Report presentation, including comments, at:

http://www.birtherreport.com/2016/03...nt-scrubs.html